Second Amendment Enforcement Act

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, there are a number of things that are less than normal procedure tonight, and I want to briefly explain what has gone on here.

We have an underlying bill that went through the Government Reform and Oversight Committee that is being offered first. The gentleman from Illinois is correct that that went through unanimously, partly after a contentious hearing and debate. Chairman Waxman and Ranking Member Davis asked if we could just move it without a lot of amendments, move it without contention, because we knew we were coming to the House floor for the major debate tonight.

In this major debate, there will be an amendment offered by Mr. Childers of Mississippi that has been worked out in cooperation, proving that in fact when we try, we can work together, and that Congressman Ross and I had a bill to overturn the D.C. gun ban. The Supreme Court took care of the need for that. The District of Columbia came back and attempted to reinstitute the ban. It became apparent from the discharge petition that the will of this House, the overwhelming majority that signed the brief to the Supreme Court, the overwhelming majority of the Senate signed a brief to the Supreme Court, and it became apparent that this House wanted a vote.

The Democrat leadership, to their credit, worked out with the NRA and the minority a bill that was acceptable to Mr. Ross and myself and those who had been attempting to overturn this. This will be offered in the nature of a substitute tonight. The underlying bill is not what is in contention here. The underlying bill is a stalking horse for the existing law and the debate we will have here is about the existing law.

The fact is that the reason the Supreme Court overturned the existing law is that under existing law if you wanted to protect yourself in your home, you had to have a gun in a

locked cabinet, disassembled, with the bullets in another location. If somebody broke into your house and started firing, you had to go find the key, assemble the gun, find the bullets, put the bullets into the gun and hope your family wasn't dead or you were dead.

The Supreme Court argued that American citizens have a preexisting right to defend themselves, and no city or State has the right to take that away. The critical part of that decision was that a militia is in fact not a military, but the militia are the citizenry itself and have a right to home defense and to self-defense. It supersedes any right of a city to abrogate that right. It supersedes the State's right to abrogate that right. It is a right to self-defense in the United States.

Now, there will be much debate tonight about the process. But let me make a couple of facts extremely clear. Marion Barry once said that the crime rate in the District of Columbia isn't too bad, except for the murders. That is not quite right, because they are actually up in all violent crime, 67 percent, even though the city has declined in population.

Washington, D.C. has been the murder capital of the United States 15 of the last 19 years. It has been in the top three the others. The two cities that have occasionally toppled it from its top rank are Baltimore and Detroit. Both those cities have restrictive laws, in Detroit and in Baltimore as well, hardly making a case that guns do anything to protect people.

In fact, John Stossel on ``20-20'' in some interviews had some interesting points. He talked to a maximum security felon, and the unidentified male prisoner said, ``When you go to rob somebody you don't know,'' speaking as if they are armed, ``if you don't know, it makes it harder to rob them.''

He also talked to another prisoner who said, when they said don't gun laws work, wouldn't that affect your ability to get guns? And he said, ``I am not worried about the government saying I can't carry a gun. I am going to carry a gun anyway.'' This isn't about, to use the classic expression, whether criminals are going to have guns. This is about whether citizens have the right to protect themselves.

The D.C. City Council after the Supreme Court decision came back with a law that basically put variations of the restrictions again that in effect became a replacement for the previous law. In this replacement they said you had to be under imminent danger.

The general interpretation of that meant somebody had to have pulled a gun on you and was possibly firing before you could once again get your gun assembled, find the bullet and all that type of procedure. But imminent danger could possibly have been when they broke into your house, possibly when somebody is coming up a sidewalk with a gun. Quite frankly, it could possibly be in certain neighborhoods that it was so egregious that we felt we had to act. We thought the Supreme Court made it clear, but it was clear D.C. intended to defy it.

Now they are trying to come forward and say just last night, I believe, that they were going to change the law again and that congressional action was unnecessary. On what basis would we at this point trust the second amendment to the D.C. City Council? The Supreme Court said it is a preexisting right to defend yourself, and that is what the debate is going to be about tonight.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Our attempt to reverse the D.C. gun ban was upheld by the Supreme Court, because, in fact, Detroit hasn't, Indianapolis hasn't, no city in the United States attempted to ban handguns, which 85 percent of American people defend themselves through handguns.

The second amendment is not any more than when the Supreme Court ruled on integration that States could stand in defiance of a court ruling. States, cities, nobody has a right to stand in defiance of a court ruling.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague and friend from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Just for the record, the substitute is Mr. Childers', a Democrat's bill, not my bill.

I yield 2 minutes to Mr. Jordan of Ohio.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

I want the record to show because I have great respect for the chairman of the Government Reform Committee, but the fact is I had talked to the minority staff about my concerns with some of the language of this bill because I believe it has factual mistakes in it that suggests that actually handguns endanger people rather than protect people.

But I talked to the chairman and to the ranking member, and the hearing that we had had been agreed to by both sides and we went through the process. You specifically told me you will get your vote on the floor and let's not have a fight in committee, so I didn't offer a series of amendments. I certainly had the right, but I chose not to do it.

I yield.

Reclaiming my time, did you not ask me if we could just have the vote and not have a bunch of amendments?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself an additional minute.

Reclaiming my time, you said can you just offer your substitute, and we knew we were going to have that vote on the floor. But what I said was I had a series of amendments, and in discussion with the majority and the minority, I'm not objecting that I didn't have the right to do it; I certainly had the right to do it. What I am objecting to is we had a process that both sides had roughly agreed that we weren't going to challenge the underlying bill. We keep hearing that the underlying bill passed unanimously. It did not have unanimous support in the committee. If we would have had a forced vote, we would have polarized on this, as we would have on the bill.

We have moved the bill forward, and that was my point. I believe we are having that debate tonight, but it should not be taken by Members of Congress that there was a unanimous vote in support of this bill as opposed to the substitute that is coming from Mr. Childers.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), a senior member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I want to remind people again not to forget during this debate that Washington, D.C. has been the murder capital of the United States 15 of the last 19 years, and the other four they were in the top three. Let's don't act like what we are doing is making it dangerous in this city.

I yield myself 1 minute.

Article I, section 8, clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to ``exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over the District.'' That was done by our Founding Fathers.

Two hundred and fifty Congressmen signed the amicus brief that said that they felt the DC gun ban should be overturned. Fifty-five Senators signed the amicus brief that said that the DC gun ban should be overturned because it violated a basic constitutional right and, according to Heller, was a pre-existing right to defend yourself, even without the constitutional question.

This is not about being a City Council. I don't believe, obviously, you could do gun limitations. The Heller case said there can be limitations. But DC came back with, in effect, a total ban all over again. The reason you have to have interstate commerce is, guess what, they passed a new ban, but there's no gun stores with which to get one gun. The Childers amendment, as I understand it, has a temporary ability to get guns elsewhere because there is no way to defend yourself in the District of Columbia because you can't buy a gun and bring it. And that's why that particular clause is in, regardless of the claims contrary, that this is not about being a State government because in fact----

I yield myself an additional minute.

That this isn't about whether or not we're usurping State government powers because the State, there isn't a State. We are, in effect, the State government. Normal cities have a State with which to work a check, and it's not a matter of city.

When it comes to a constitutional right, whether it's freedom of speech, freedom of religion or any basic right, no City Council has a right to take away.

I would be happy to yield.

To answer the gentleman's question very directly, my assumption was, after the Heller case, that my bill was dead and that we would not have to revisit it in Congress. I was outraged by the actions of the District of Columbia, and that led to the process of working with those who signed the brief, including Mr. Childers, who's doing the amendment, Mr. Ross, on your side who had been there to act. I did not believe that the District of Columbia was going to do such an egregious bill that said you had to be in imminent danger that put most of those controls in.

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

There is no reason to believe that an action on the eve of legislation in Congress is in good faith by the DC Council.

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, it's Mr. Childers, and obviously the Congressional process has started. I have no faith, that the current is a gimmick, that it will stand.

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds. And thus we are at this point in the process. Obviously, if the DC government enacted legislation that Congress had faith in, that this bill would likely not go through the Senate and be signed by the President. But we are now moving a bill through that had been agreed upon a number of weeks ago, that I believe is necessary, that I don't believe the DC Council acted in good faith. But we shall see.

But the vote's here. We're voting on a Democratic amendment tonight that's been agreed to, that the majority of this House, that the majority of the Senate agrees with, and I think, at this point the United States Congress has lost faith in whether the----

I yield myself an additional 15 seconds.

This Congress has lost faith in the willingness of the District of Columbia to defend the second amendment which is a constitutional right guaranteed by a Supreme Court decision.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve my time.

May I inquire as to the time remaining on both sides?

I yield myself 2 minutes.

We earlier had an exchange with my distinguished colleague and friend from Maryland about whether it was needed for us to pass legislation. Let me read from washingtonpost.com right after the Supreme Court decision.

``Mayor Adrian Fenty and his feisty Attorney General, Peter Nickles, stood on the steps of the Wilson Building this week ostensibly to announce how the District will comply with the Supreme Court's rejection of Washington's ban on handguns. But really, they were delivering very much the opposite message. With only the narrowest of exceptions, we're sticking with our gun ban. Don't like it? Sue us.''

Quote, ``I am pretty confident that the people of the District of Columbia want us to err in the direction of trying to restrict guns,'' Fenty told me, smiling broadly at the suggestion that what he's really trying to do is make it as hard as possible for Washingtonians to keep a loaded gun at home.''

Nickles, the Acting Attorney General said, ``it's clear the Supreme Court didn't intend for you to have a loaded gun around the house.''

Quite frankly, that isn't what the Supreme Court said. The Supreme Court says you have a right to have a handgun in your house to protect yourself; that if this bill was, in fact, just what the D.C. City Council was doing, then it won't harm for us to pass this bill. The only danger is if the City Council really doesn't mean to protect the second amendment.

We have lost faith. Statements like this were outrageous after the Supreme Court decision, and that a coalition in this House, something that's rare, a majority of Members working together on both sides of the aisle, working--and NRA has been spit out of some people's mouth like it's some kind of evil organization. The NRA represents gun owners and people who believe in family protection all over America. I am not ashamed to be proud that I work with the NRA. And there are Members on the Democratic side, Mr. Childers is offering the substitute amendment with the support of the Blue Dogs and we've worked together, 250 Members, 55 in the Senate. And it's made to sound like it's some kind of little minor group that wants to take over the City Council of D.C. It's a majority of America. It's a majority of the House, the majority of the Senate, this administration who say the second amendment should be protected. And just because you live in a city that wants to take it away doesn't give that city the right to take it away.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to my friend and colleague from Georgia (Mr. Broun).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Lewis is certainly the most respected advocate for civil rights in this United States Congress. No city has a right to deprive a constitutional right, even if the majority of people in that State or city favor depriving you. I don't know how D.C. could be less safe. It's the murder capital in 15 of the last 19 years since they instituted the gun law, and the other 4 years they were in the top three. They were not before they instituted the gun law.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Does the gentleman have any additional speakers?

Mr. Chairman, I will yield myself the balance of the time.

Anybody watching this debate can feel the passion, and they can see some differences based on where people are from. And can you hear the passion from many of those in the urban cities who are very concerned about the violent crime.

I believe this solution is not only wrong and doesn't work; it's unconstitutional. But I do want to say a few words that we do need to get control of the challenges in our urban areas.

As my friend from Chicago knows well, we've worked together on prisoner re-entry programs; we've worked together on education programs. We need to make sure there are job opportunities. And there are many things we need to do to try to address the problems that the inner cities face.

I do not believe the taking away of the constitutional right to bear arms is the way to go. I don't believe it will work. I believe Washington, D.C. is a model of a gun law not working. And besides that, it happens to be the constitutional right of American citizens to defend themselves.

The Supreme Court ruled clearly. The City of Washington attempted to defy that ruling; 250 Members of Congress, 55 Senators who signed the amicus brief believed that Congress therefore has to step reluctantly in to try to pass this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from Mississippi. And I also want to thank the dean of the House, Chairman Dingell, who has been a hero to gun owners all over America for many years, for his willingness to stand up. And I want to thank our new freshman Member, Mr. Childers, and those who are standing with him, because this is, indeed, a historic night. And unless you're a Member of Congress or somebody who is kind of a political junkie, it's hard to figure out exactly what's happening tonight.

In fact, a discharge petition is something that, when you sign it, basically would turn the House over to the other party. And if you're willing to stand up to your own party, you could force a vote. I know this because, when we first became in the majority, I was one who was often pulled into a side room, threatened that by bringing down a rule or other things that I was going to destroy the party. In fact, sometimes it's your only way to force things. There is a certain number of votes that are allowed on each side to let a bill go through.

But what we're seeing tonight was the courage of some Members on the majority side to stand up and say, look, we want a bill. And as these negotiations move forward, it came to me, as the Republican author, along with Mr. Ross, of the bill to overturn this, of, will you accept somewhat less than the whole, but a bill that actually has a chance to be law.

Now, as a Republican, I could have said, you know, I think we'll let them fight and we'll go into the election with no bill, with no vote in the House, and put those who are so-called Blue Dogs in a real spot. But that isn't the way we should legislate. We have Members who stood up, even in their own party, and said we want to broker an agreement. We had Members on our side, in our leadership, agreeing that we will be willing to negotiate. And we had a Democrat leadership willing to sit down and work it out even though the majority of their party doesn't agree with this, and obviously many of them are passionately upset.

So tonight is a historic debate. Tomorrow will be a historic vote: Will the will of the House be allowed to work its will as it did on campaign finance reform? And I thank the gentleman from Mississippi for his leadership.

I thank the gentleman from Mississippi.

I wanted to clarify for those watching the debate and for the Congressional Record that the one hearing we did have, there were four witnesses. Three of them were Federal witnesses, and Mr. Issa asked each one of them whether the bill that this amendment is amending had any impact on them. All of them said no. They were never asked another question during the hearing, because they weren't relevant to the hearing.

The fourth witness was the police chief of Washington, D.C., and she did have an opinion and doesn't agree, obviously, with this amendment. But she is a political appointee of the mayor, and while it may be her personal view, if she held a view different from the mayor or city council, she would have been removed.

So it was somewhat inaccurate to present that at our hearing, that somehow the witnesses all felt that there was this imminent danger in the Federal sector, because all three of them said the bill had nothing to do whatsoever with their positions.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Does the gentleman from Mississippi have the right to close?

Mr. Speaker, as you might guess, I rise in opposition to this rule, to the underlying legislation, and, I believe, to the entire process that got this bill here today, which I believe represents little more than an opportunity for this Democratic majority to thumb its nose at the Supreme Court's recent ruling upholding an individual's right to keep and bear arms, while also providing some of its vulnerable Members with a meaningless political cover vote leading up to this fall's election.

Since taking control of this House almost 2 years ago, Mr. Speaker, this Democrat majority has done everything in its power to prevent Republicans who agree with the Supreme Court that residents of the District of Columbia have the right to self-defense, like every other American citizen, having a vote on this issue, is very important. In fact, last year it was the Democrats' need to prevent a vote on this very issue that brought the debate on providing the District of Columbia with a voting Member of Congress to a screeching halt.

Today, however, the Democrat majority has been forced to bring this measure to the floor because of a rapidly growing bipartisan support for a competing measure to comply with the Supreme Court's affirmation of D.C. residents' constitutional rights. Isn't it amazing? The District of Columbia went to court and found out that they had to follow constitutional rights.

And there's also a fear by the Democrat majority that a discharge petition that has already won the support of 166 Members of Congress, the passage of which the Washington Post has recently said would be ``deeply embarrassing to the House leadership and could infrastructure the party's House contingent.''

Mr. Speaker, instead of providing real, meaningful policy solutions to make the lives of law-abiding citizens of the District of Columbia safer, today we are taking up a measure that would continue to subvert the wishes of our Founding Fathers, as recognized and affirmed by the Supreme Court, while also allowing Members to have a vote on an excellent substitute amendment which I fear will be dead on arrival when it reaches the Democrat-controlled Senate.

This substitute amendment, which I strongly support and have cosponsored, along with 115 other bipartisan colleagues, would recognize that D.C.'s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the second amendment, as does the District of Columbia's prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.

To correct this injustice, the substitute amendment would repeal the District's illogical ban on the most popular home and self-defense weapons, restore the right of self-defense in the home, repeal the District's intentionally burdensome registration process, and allow D.C. residents to finally purchase handguns and defend themselves in their own homes.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that as early as today, that the D.C. City Council may be meeting to address this issue. But I remain concerned about what the same authors of the so-called ``emergency'' legislation that violated the Supreme Court's ruling just a few months ago, may try to pass in order to continue to drag their feet and to deny D.C. residents their constitutional rights to protect themselves and their families in their own home. This Congress should not be on record trying to avoid what is the law of the land.

Because of the Council's demonstrated past willingness to abide by our Nation's laws, I believe that it is important that this House pass the substitute amendment on behalf of all law-abiding citizens who want to exercise their constitutional rights within the District of Columbia.

Additionally, as the administration notes in their statement of policy on this legislation, the underlying bill in its current form would do nothing more than direct the D.C. City Council to reconsider within 180 days the emergency firearms legislation it passed in July, and which will expire in October, regardless of this House's action on this matter. This means that if this legislation is passed without the substitute amendment provided for by this rule, the legislation's only effect would be to give the City Council even more time to drag its feet and remain non-compliant with the directives of the highest court in our land.

Mr. Speaker, it really should not be so difficult to write a law that is compliant with the Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit this Statement of Administration Policy in opposition to this bill and in support of the substitute amendment in the Congressional Record.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 6842--National Capital Security and Safety Act

(Del. Norton (D) District of Columbia and Rep. Waxman (D) California)

The Administration supports the objective behind H.R. 6842

of revising the District of Columbia's firearms laws to

ensure their conformity with the Second Amendment as

interpreted by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v.

Heller. The bill in its present form, however, would do

nothing more than direct the District's City Council to

reconsider the emergency firearms legislation that it

unanimously passed in July. Because that emergency

legislation must by law expire in October, H.R. 6842 simply

requires the Council to do what it is effectively required to

do already (in far less time than the 180 days that would be

required by this bill). Therefore, the Administration

strongly opposes this legislation unless it is amended to

include the provisions of H.R. 6691, the Second Amendment

Enforcement Act.

The Administration strongly supports H.R. 6691 because it

would immediately advance Second Amendment principles by

directly protecting the individual right of law-abiding

District residents to keep and bear commonly used firearms

not only to protect themselves and their families but also to

protect their homes and property. H.R. 6691 would ensure that

law-abiding residents of the District have a meaningful

opportunity to procure lawful firearms without undue delay,

as well as the ability to keep those firearms readily

accessible for self-defense without having to unlock or

assemble them in the face of imminent danger. H.R. 6691,

which has bipartisan support, would responsibly balance

individual rights with the public safety by expanding the

practical opportunities to keep and bear arms for lawful

purposes in the District within the reasonable limits imposed

by the Federal firearms laws.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all my colleagues to support the substitute amendment to hold D.C. accountable to the Supreme Court, to the laws of this land, and to provide its residents with all the constitutional rights enjoyed by other American citizens, and to oppose the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, you know, I find it very interesting that the gentleman from Massachusetts talks about ``those Republicans that have forced us into having to bring this bill to the floor today.''

I will yield.

I appreciate the gentleman clarifying that.

Reclaiming my time, the gentleman accused those who are on the other side of the debate of forcing this issue today.

Well, Mr. Speaker, this is an internal struggle within the Democratic Party. The gentleman who brought the bill to the floor today chaired the Rules Committee last night. I heard no voice opposition to the rule, to the substitute; and yet today we hear they were being forced into doing this by the other side, those who opposed the bill. But it's their bill. It's their internal fight. It's their internal disagreement. It's their argument that they're having among their own family members.

So for the record, let me just state the Republican Party is for following the law. We do believe the Supreme Court got it right. We believe that it is wrong to bring a bill to the floor as the majority party, the Democratic Party, has done to try and circumvent and lengthen out the time that was given by the Supreme Court for someone to come into compliance with the law.

And we do believe that what the Rules Committee did last night was not open and honest and not about more accountability. We believe what they did was to handle a political matter that is a fight that they're having among themselves.

The Republican Party is pleased to be here on behalf of taxpayers and law-abiding citizens who want to protect themselves. We believe that this substitute amendment, which has been made in order by the Rules Committee, is the better of the two bills.

But to say that somebody is struggling or some outside forces are forcing this bill upon this Democrat majority is absurd.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia and my former colleague on the Rules Committee, Dr. Gingrey.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'd like to yield 5 minutes to the chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter).

Mr. Speaker, we respect this Congress's ability to consult with and work with city councils and local governments. But to suggest in any way that this Congress should be trying to help anyone or collude with them to extend time frames that have been established already by the highest court of this land, that I believe was a reasonable answer--the gentleman from Wisconsin believes it was a reasonable answer--is a different kind of issue.

And that's all this bill really does today, gives the city council more time; wait till after the election before this tough issue can be decided any further by that body and by this.

I think it's a mistake to wait. I think it's a mistake to intervene, and I think it's a mistake not to follow the law that the Supreme Court has laid out for the D.C. government. D.C. government needs to follow the law, needs to follow the Constitution. They've been told that a long time. They've fought it. They've done all they can. They lost. The Supreme Court issued the decision. It's time to follow the law.

Mr. Speaker, we reserve our balance.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

Mr. Speaker, since taking control of this House, this Democrat Congress has totally neglected its responsibility to address the domestic supply issues that have created the skyrocketing gas, diesel and energy costs that American families today and in the future are facing.

By going on vacation for 5 weeks over August while I and 138 other of my Republican colleagues stayed in Washington to talk about real energy solutions for American families, this Democrat majority has proven that they do not believe that the energy crisis facing American families and businesses is important enough to cancel their summer beach plans or book tours to get their work done.

However, enough of their Members must have heard from their frustrated constituents over August who are tired of the political games that the Democrats are playing and they want some kind of action. Because today, we are considering yet another measure to provide their Members with a political

cover vote that will do nothing to bring down the cost of energy at the pump because it does nothing to encourage participation by States in a program to increase the amount of American-made energy. We are simply wasting our time on a sham, and something that will not materialize to help energy prices.

Mr. Speaker, last Friday, an influential Democrat Senator stated what everybody in this House knows, that any bill excluding energy production revenue sharing for the States will never pass the Senate, making the cynical and political exercise that the House will engage in shortly even more transparent.

So today, I urge my colleagues to vote with me to defeat the previous question so this House can finally consider a real and comprehensive solution to rising energy costs in addition to today's bill to buy the District of Columbia more time to avoid compliance with the Supreme Court's ruling on the second amendment.

If the previous question is defeated, I will move to amend the rule to allow for additional consideration of H.R. 6566, the American Energy Act. This real, all-of-the-above bill would increase the supply of American-made energy, improve conservation and efficiency, and promote new and expanding energy technologies to help lower the cost at the pump and reduce America's increasing costly and dangerous dependence on foreign sources of energy.

I encourage everyone that believes a comprehensive solution to solving this energy crisis and achieving energy independence includes increasing the supply of American energy to defeat the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of this amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 6842, the National Capital Security and Safety Act.

The bill before us this evening has been crafted with great care and with utmost concern for the safety and well-being of our Nation's capital--its residents, businesses, visitors, and the Federal Government.

I would like to recognize and thank the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) as well as Committee Chairman Henry Waxman for their leadership in bringing today's bill to the floor and for not turning a blind eye to the concept of home rule and self-governance by attempting to rewrite the District's new gun laws since the Supreme Court's decision in the Heller case.

The measure has been considered and debated thoroughly by the oversight committee and was approved by a vote of 21-1, which demonstrates the bill's bipartisan support.

As chairman of the subcommittee with oversight authority over the District of Columbia, I am well aware of the long history behind the District's gun regulatory efforts as well as the city's continual efforts to protect its citizens against violence and crime. As chairman, I'm also well aware of the effect that the presence of the Federal Government places on the security concerns of the District.

H.R. 6842 seeks to highlight this issue by urging the District's city council to take into consideration such issues as homeland security, military functionality, threats of terrorism, and foreign dignitary protection as they continue to amend their laws to be in compliance with the Supreme Court's Heller decision.

The measure being considered today serves as a commonsense and practical approach to ensuring the requisite protection of our Nation's capital, while at the same time supporting the District in its efforts to reform its own gun laws versus rewriting the laws for them.

That is the job that the District's elected officials are tasked with, not Congress, and I am happy to see that this legislation recognizes that, especially since according to information from the District City Council, efforts are already underway to address several outstanding second amendment issues from the Supreme Court's Heller decision and expressed by Members of Congress in other pieces of legislation. The Council is revisiting the definition of ``machine guns'' and ``semiautomatics'' and making current gun storage requirements advisory versus mandatory.

In light of the city's efforts today, today's bill, H.R. 6842, represents both the least and the most we should be doing at this moment and at this level. The bill upon enactment gives the District 6 months to finalize its laws governing the possession and use of firearms as necessary to comply with the decision of the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller.

As the city continues to perform its work to produce a permanent gun law reform package, I am sure that at some point in the future Congress, under its legislative review authority, will have the chance to revisit this issue under regular and proper protocol. But until then, let us continue promoting the importance of self-government and home rule for the District of Columbia and the importance of safety and security in our Nation's capital by supporting H.R. 6842.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the majority leader, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the primary author of the Norton bill, Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton from Washington, D.C.

I yield another 30 seconds to the lady.

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the chairman of Oversight and Government Reform, Mr. Henry Waxman.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have left.

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Mr. Chairman, I would just say you can certainly kill more people with automatic weapons.

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, Representative Elijah Cummings.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to a strong proponent of sane, sensible gun legislation, Representative Carolyn McCarthy from New York.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California, Representative Lynn Woolsey.

Mr. Chairman, I'm absolutely certain that the people in Morton Grove, Illinois, would not suggest that they have a high-crime community.

It is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, Representative John Lewis.

Mr. Chairman, it's my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to Representative Donna Edwards from Maryland.

I am prepared to close.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of our time.

Mr. Chairman, we've been debating tonight a gun issue. But it also is a home rule issue, an issue that simply says that the people of the District of Columbia should have the opportunity to make a decision about themselves. We're also debating a homeland security issue, a crime prevention issue, a safety issue. It's a foreign dignitary protection issue. But it's also a commonsense issue.

Common sense tells us that the more weapons you put on the street, the more likely you are to have disaster. And so H.R. 6842 represents and protects all of what we have discussed relative to the ability of the people of the District of Columbia to make their own decision.

I urge that we vote in favor of the Waxman-Norton bill and reject the Childers substitute.

I yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment being offered.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment being offered by the gentleman from Mississippi. The amendment, which is largely taken from the base bill H.R. 6691, goes way beyond the ruling that's been handed down by the Supreme Court in the Heller case and, ironically, would lead to less security and safety and greater risk in the Nation's capital.

Moreover, in light of the ruling in the Heller case, the gentleman's amendment touches on more than just the issue of gun ownership in the home for purposes of self-defense.

The amendment would allow the unfettered transport of guns and/or firearms and the possession of guns in businesses, and as written, the amendment only says businesses and nothing about businesses in which property is owned.

And what is even more disturbing about the amendment is that it strips the District of Columbia from issuing or enacting any rule, law, or regulation dealing with homeownership. Nowhere in the case was such an order or action addressed or even mentioned in the Heller Supreme Court decision as written by Justice Scalia. In fact, it is my understanding that the decision clearly stated that a range of gun regulations

are presumptively lawful. However, the gentleman's amendment fails to take that part of the Court's ruling into consideration.

When the Court overturned the District's long-standing gun laws, in order not to infringe upon the second amendment rights of District residents, it set in motion a process that would require the District Government to rewrite the laws and not the United States Congress or the House of Representatives. This would be the case in Tupelo, Mississippi. Therefore, the elected officials of the District of Columbia should have an opportunity to develop permanent legislation to bring the city into compliance with the Heller ruling.

If I may, Mr. Chairman, let me point out just what the amendment before us does. For starters, it would eliminate any form of gun registration which would prevent the city's police department from knowing who owns what type of gun or firearm.

Secondly, the language is written so broadly that it would permit individuals to carry assault rifles openly in public and on D.C. streets.

Lastly, I'd also like to point out that the amendment creates a gun show loophole that will allow D.C. residents to avoid background checks when purchasing weapons from private individuals and at gun shows without background checks.

While Members from both sides of the aisle agree on the importance of preserving individual rights, we must also recognize that we live in perilous times, and with lone-wolf terrorists and copycat shootings on the rise, flat out ignoring the homeland security interests of the District of Columbia and the Federal Government is downright reckless and risky.

But yet, this is exactly what this amendment has the potential to do, if adopted. As stated earlier, the District has already begun to revamp its laws, and in the coming months, we will have an opportunity to review the newly adopted gun ownership laws under our already well- established congressional review authority.

I ask my colleagues to recognize and respect this fact and to join me in opposing this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Maryland, Representative Donna Edwards.

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton.

I yield 1 additional minute to the gentlelady.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield 30 additional seconds to the gentlewoman.

Announcement by the Chairman

Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 4 minutes to the chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Representative Henry Waxman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Much of the discussion is about crime and crime prevention and protection. We sound as though people are invading people's homes and are murdering them and are attacking them. Much of the murder that I read about and that I hear about is really from drive-by shootings. It's really by individuals with semiautomatics who are engaged in turf battles over drugs, who are killing each other. They're not by people who are necessarily invading homes. They're by people who have access to these high-powered guns, people who are killing each other on the streets.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve. I understand that Mr. Childers is ready to close.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to certainly acknowledge the not only newness of the gentleman from Mississippi, but also his demeanor, his debate and his introduction of legislation. It occurred to me though if we were in West Point, Mississippi, or if we were in Fort Wayne, Indiana, or if we were in Western Pennsylvania telling the people in those communities what we thought they ought to be doing or the way in which we felt they had to be in compliance with the Supreme Court as they were wrestling with those decisions themselves, they probably would say that we were unwelcome.

I think that the people of the District of Columbia would say that this amendment is unwelcome, that it further takes away their right to self-governance. Here they are, they don't have a representative in Congress with a vote. Now we are saying that your City Council and your representatives on the City Council can't decide the way in which you would be in compliance with the highest court in our land.

Let me just mention that a previous speaker said that the District passed a law prohibiting District residents from bringing in weapons from across State lines. That was incorrect. In fact, Congress passed this law, not the District of Columbia. But this amendment would remove this restriction.

So I think Members should understand that this is the first step in the NRA's plan to repeal Federal gun control laws, not just in the District of Columbia. But I think it is a matter of using the District of Columbia to work one's will for other parts of the country and to work a national will using the people of the District of Columbia.

I think the protections that are needed and the compliance that is needed can be found in the Waxman-Norton bill, and that this amendment, the Childers amendment, unfortunately strips that bill of its impact. For that reason, I would urge that we reject the Childers amendment vote for the Norton-Waxman bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, this is an attempt to write the DC gun laws and to take away the authority of the elected government of the District of Columbia to write its own laws relative to firearms consistent with the new Supreme Court decision. If the Senator from Texas were making such a proposal for the city of Dallas or the city of Houston or the city of San Antonio, it would have some credibility because that is her State. But to make this request that we would overrule the power of the elected government of DC to implement the Supreme Court decision is inappropriate.

On behalf of Senators who have signed a public letter in opposition to the bill that passed the House, Senators Lautenberg, Feinstein, Menendez, Mikulski, Akaka, Jack Reed, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Chris Dodd, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Ben Cardin, and myself, I object.

Mr. President, I first came to this city over 40 years ago as a student. It was a time before the District of Columbia had home rule. There was a certain paternalism felt by Congress toward the city of Washington, DC. Of course, the city of Washington, DC, does not have a voting representative in the Senate, and the delegate, Eleanor Holmes Norton, who serves in the House, has limited authority to vote in committee but not on the floor. So DC does not have a voice in the House or Senate Chambers, despite the fact that some 600,000 taxpaying Americans live in our Capital City. I think that is wrong. I have consistently supported giving DC representation in Congress because I believe these Americans living in this city deserve the same rights to have a vote and be heard as those who live in Chicago or Dallas or Houston. But that has been the course of history.

Many people who come to Congress, always longing to be a mayor, get a chance to be a mayor over the District of Columbia. So this poor Capital City has 535 would-be mayors in the House and Senate who want to write ordinances for the city of Washington, DC, some of whom have been mayors at home, some of whom have lost in elections for mayor, but they are going to come here and be the mayor of Washington, DC, in addition to being a Member of the House and Senate.

There was another event that occurred shortly after I arrived in Washington--in fact, within a few weeks after I arrived--and that event occurred on November 22, 1963, in the city of Dallas, TX, when a great man and wonderful President, John Kennedy, was assassinated because another man took a long-range rifle and shot at his motorcade as he passed through that city, mortally wounding the President of the United States and claiming his life. It was a tragedy which those of us who lived through will never forget as long as we live, and it is a reminder that even if you recognize and respect rights under the second amendment--and I do--there have to be reasonable limits in terms of firearms and weapons. Otherwise, the Lee Harvey Oswalds of tomorrow can literally menace those who visit this city.

I just left a meeting with the President of Afghanistan, a wonderful man who risks his life in Kabul every day to give his people in Afghanistan a chance for freedom. He is under heavy security and guard not only in Afghanistan but in the United States. Are we going to put ourselves in a position to say--as the bill that the Senator from Texas wanted to bring to the floor says--that we are going to repeal the District of Columbia's laws on semiautomatic and assault weapons?

Are we going to now say that Congress will mandate that weapons which could be dangerous for those who live here and those who visit here in this Capital City, that we will decide in Congress which weapons will be allowed and which will not be allowed? That is what this bill does. That is exactly what it does. It goes much further than the Supreme Court decision in DC v. Heller reached just a few weeks ago.

Let me be specific. The bill would severely undermine DC gun laws far beyond the scope of that Supreme Court decision. That decision invalidated the District of Columbia's handgun ban and found that the second amendment confers an individual right. I don't quarrel with that, but it did not require the invalidation of all other types of laws, as this bill does. In fact, Justice Scalia--no liberal--Justice Antonin Scalia, in the majority opinion in Heller, specifically noted that a wide range of gun laws are ``presumptively lawful.'' Everything from laws ``forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places'' to ``conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.''

Justice Scalia, in acknowledging that the second amendment creates an individual right to firearms, still made it clear that individual jurisdictions--States, local units of government--would still have the authority to forbid the carrying of firearms in sensitive places and to impose conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

The bill that Senator Hutchison wants us to impose on the District of Columbia, however, repeals the prohibition of the District of Columbia of carrying guns in public, directly counter to the language of Justice Scalia; repeals DC's gun registration requirements, though it is clear in the language of the Supreme Court decision that jurisdictions such as Washington have the right to impose conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms; repeals the requirement of the District of Columbia that guns are not sold to those who abuse them in crimes or those who are mentally unstable. The provisions of the bill which Senator Hutchison would impose on the District of Columbia repeals their right to stop people with mental illness from buying firearms or those with a history of commission of felonies. Does that make sense? Does it make sense in Washington? Does it make sense in Chicago? Does it make sense in Dallas or Houston? It does not make sense.

To come here and say that we are going to write the DC gun law, we are going to decide the safety of 600,000 people and every visitor to this city, is plain wrong. Give the city of Washington the same opportunity that the city of Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, and Chicago asks: to write laws consistent with this Supreme Court decision. They have to. Ultimately, any effort to do otherwise is going to be overturned by that Court. But to impose, as the Childers bill would-- Representative Childers of Mississippi introduced this bill--as this bill would, is to go too far.

I will object to this because I think this city of Washington, as well as the cities of Chicago and Springfield, IL, which I represent, and the cities of Texas have the right to write their laws to protect their citizens. When we come here and impose on them requirements and restrictions that are not being imposed on cities in our own State, it goes too far.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the police chief of the District of Columbia, Cathy Lanier, testified before the House of Representatives and said this bill, which Senator Hutchison is trying to impose on the District of Columbia, would make it far more difficult for the policemen in the District of Columbia and Federal agencies ``to ensure safety and security in the Nation's capital,'' and she cited particular concerns about providing security for the thousands of dignitaries, motorcades, and special events that occur in our Nation's capital.

I wish to listen to those who are in uniform risking their lives in Washington, DC, to keep it safe for the people who live and visit here. They should be given the opportunity to make sure the laws that are written are written in a way to be consistent with the Supreme Court decision, consistent with the individual right to bear arms but also consistent with the standards that Justice Scalia mentioned.

The Childers bill that Senator Hutchison would say must be the law of the District of Columbia would repeal the District of Columbia's prohibition of carrying guns in public. That runs directly counter to the language of Justice Scalia, who said that States and cities could impose laws ``forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places.'' Does that mean we would be prohibited from searching people coming into the Capitol complex and taking their guns away under the Hutchison provision? I am not sure I know the answer to that question, but I think it is worth thinking about carefully before we consider imposing this gun ordinance from the House.

I am also concerned about the fact that this bill would repeal the right of Washington, DC, to regulate gun sales. I don't want guns to end up in the hands of the mentally ill and those with a history of felonies, violent felonies. Does that make you feel safer?

My State of Illinois, similar to the State of Virginia, recently went through this tragic episode, where someone brought a gun into college last year at Northern Illinois University, killing innocent people. It also happened across the river at Virginia Tech.

Do I think in Illinois and in Virginia we want to make sure on college campuses and other sensitive places that people do not carry firearms? Of course, I do. If I am going to send a child of mine or grandchild to a university, the first thing I want is for them to come home alive. If it means putting reasonable standards so people cannot carry guns into those surroundings, we should do it. Why would we create a different circumstance for the District of Columbia? I went to school at Georgetown University. If Georgetown wants to make certain that students do not carry guns on to certain elements of the campus, I stand behind them and I will fight for them. It is consistent with the Supreme Court decision.

I wish to tell you something, the Childers bill that Senator Hutchison would impose on Washington repeals Washington's right to prohibit the carrying of guns in public. That goes too far. To take this provision that has been written by the gun lobby and impose it on the District of Columbia and on all the people who live here is wrong.

The Senator is right; in the past, Congress has done just about anything you can think imaginable when it comes to imposing laws on the District of Columbia. Many Members of Congress who never served as mayors get their chance to pick on this city right here, to write Federal legislation that they would never think of introducing back home for their own hometowns. Let's do it for Washington; let's go ahead and try a little experiment. That is not fair, it is not just, and it is not American.

These people in this town deserve a voice in their own future, to elect people who speak for them and represent them, as we do all across America, to have a chance, as Delegate Norton has asked for, only 6 months to implement this new Supreme Court decision is not unreasonable. I know there are those who want it done today, and I am anxious to see it done, too, but I am not going to try to impose a law on the District of Columbia that is unfair, that creates insecurity where we have been warned by the police chief that it makes it less safe for visitors to the Nation's capital. That is irresponsible.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter, dated September 22, 2008, to our majority leader from some of my colleagues expressing concern about this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1434 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1434.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1434 provides for the consideration of H.R. 6842, the National Capital Security and Safety Act, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. The rule makes in order the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the report if offered by Representative Childers. That amendment is debatable for 1 hour. The rule also provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I stand before this House as a supporter of the second amendment, but also as a strong supporter of sensible gun safety legislation. I also stand here as a strong supporter of the elected Government of the District of Columbia, and I respect their right to enact and execute their own laws.

Apparently, and unfortunately, not all of my colleagues agree. They believe that Members of Congress from other States have the right to dictate matters that are best left to local governments.

On June 26, 2008, by a 5-4 decision in the Heller case, the Supreme Court upheld a ruling of the Federal Appeals Court which found the District's ban on handgun possession to be unconstitutional. It is important to note that the court stipulated that this right is not unlimited; they reaffirmed that ``any gun, anywhere'' is not constitutionally protected.

In response to the ruling, the D.C. City Council passed, and the mayor signed, emergency legislation to temporarily allow District residents to

have pistols in their homes. The council will continue their work this week by making those changes permanent.

Mr. Speaker, the elected D.C. City Council and the elected mayor are committed to complying with the Heller decision. The plaintiff in the case, Dick Heller, was quickly allowed to keep a gun in his home.

But that is not good enough for my friends on the other side of this debate. They believe it is not good enough for the D.C. Government to comply with the court's ruling. They believe they can take this opportunity to shove the agenda of a single special interest, the gun lobby, down the throats of the citizens of the District of Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, it is beyond insulting; it is arrogant. I ask my friends on the other side, how would they like it if Congress enacted laws that took away local control in their own communities? Maybe Congress should decide whether the ``Adventures of Huckleberry Finn'' can be assigned in the Dallas County schools. Maybe Congress should decide whether a new Wal-Mart can be built in Tupelo, Mississippi. Maybe Congress should decide how many firefighters the Macon, Georgia Fire Department should have.

I promise you, Mr. Speaker, that if we tried to bring any of those things to the House floor, my friends on the other side of the aisle would be down here screaming about big government and local control. But when it comes to doing the bidding of the gun lobby, they have decided that Congress knows best.

It is bad enough that the citizens of the District of Columbia have to endure taxation without representation every single day. And it is bad enough that even though soldiers from the District of Columbia can fight and die wearing the uniform of the United States, they do not have the right to a full vote in the United States Congress.

We should be strengthening the District's right to govern itself, not trouncing on it. For years, Congress treated the District of Columbia as its little fiefdom. The amendment made in order under this rule would take us back to those bad old days.

Again, the purpose of the underlying bipartisan legislation before us today is to require that the D.C. Government comply with the Heller decision within 180 days. There is simply no need, there is no justification for this Congress to go beyond the Heller decision and impose sweeping changes to the self-governance of D.C. But that is exactly what the Heller amendment would do, easing access to guns, eliminating gun registration, and making D.C. law enforcement's job to protect its residents and the visitors that come here that much harder.

This will, in no way, make our Nation's capital a safer place.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Congresswoman Holmes Norton for her steadfast representation of the District, and for bringing H.R. 6842 to the floor today. I urge my colleagues to support her legislation and to vote ``no'' on the Childers amendment, and I look forward to the debate today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this debate is nuts. The Childers amendment, among other things, would allow stockpiling of military- style weapons with high capacity ammunition magazines. It would undermine Federal anti-gun trafficking laws. It would prohibit D.C. from enacting commonsense gun laws. It would repeal commonsense restrictions on gun possession by dangerous unqualified persons. It repeals all age limits for the possession and carrying of long guns, including assault rifles. It allows gun possession by many persons who have committed violent or drug-related misdemeanor crimes. It allows many persons who are dangerously mentally ill to obtain firearms. It repeals registration requirements for firearms. It repeals all safe storage laws.

Mr. Speaker, it is my view that, if, in fact, we enacted the Childers amendment, that we would create a situation where we put more people in danger.

This is not about security for the citizens of D.C. This, quite frankly, is about insecurity. What this amendment is is one big fat wet kiss to the National Rifle Association.

At this point, Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton.

I yield the gentlewoman another 2 minutes.

Will the gentleman yield?

I didn't accuse the Republicans of forcing. I said ``those on the other side of this debate.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York, the Chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government, which oversees the District of Columbia, Mr. Serrano.

Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana for his interesting speech on drilling. I have to tell him it hasn't convinced me to support the Childers amendment on guns. Maybe he's implying that more guns on the street means cheaper gas prices, but I don't think he even believes that.

At this point, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Childers).

Mr. Speaker, I know this debate's getting a little wacky, but I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan. In those 5 minutes that he spoke, the big oil companies that the Republicans have been so supportive of have made $1.7 million in profits.

I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).

(Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross).

(Mr. ROSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from the District of Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, before I use my time, I would like to insert in the Record a statement by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence; a statement by Stop Handgun Violence; a letter signed by a number of religious organizations opposed to the Childers amendment; and a letter from D.C. Vote, which includes the D.C. Republican Committee, which opposes the Childers amendment.

Childers Amendment Would Repeal D.C. Gun Laws, Endanger Public Safety

and Threaten Homeland Security

The House may soon consider legislation concerning D.C. gun

laws. We support H.R. 6842, the bipartisan Norton/Issa bill

to require that D.C. conform its laws to the Supreme Court

ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller. The D.C. Council is

already in the process of amending its gun laws in response

to Heller, and this bill requires D.C. to act within 180

days.

A dangerous NRA-backed amendment, proposed by Rep.

Childers, would repeal D.C. gun laws and go far beyond

authorizing gun possession for self-defense in the home. The

amendment is based on H.R. 6691, a reckless bill so broad it

even would have allowed the carrying of assault rifles on

D.C. streets. After the NRA repeatedly claimed that nothing

in H.R. 6691 ``would allow people to carry loaded firearms

outside of their home,'' it apparently agreed to undo

dangerous provisions that did in fact allow the carrying of

assault rifles in public. Yet the rest of the Childers

amendment remains almost identical to H.R. 6691--it still

undermines gun laws and endangers homeland security.

After repeatedly misleading Congress about the scope of

H.R. 6691, the NRA has no credibility on this issue. Last

week, the NRA's chief lobbyist, Chris Cox, was quoted

repeatedly stating that the bill would not allow the open

carrying of assault weapons, and ridiculing those who claimed

otherwise. The NRA has now implicitly conceded that its

repeated prior statements were false, as the revisions are

aimed at a problem that the NRA claimed did not exist. Either

the NRA was intentionally misleading Congress and the public

about the bill, or it did not understand what its top

legislative priority would do. It is hard to know which is

worse.

The NRA-backed Childers amendment still creates serious

threats to public safety and homeland security by allowing

dangerous persons to stockpile semiautomatic assault weapons

with high capacity ammunition magazines in D.C., undermining

federal laws to curtail gun trafficking, and prohibiting D.C.

from passing laws that could ``discourage'' gun possession or

use, even basic safe storage requirements or age limits for

the possession of assault rifles. We oppose the dangerous

Childers amendment to H.R. 6842.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.