+ 2(,1 1/,1(Citation: 139 Cong. Rec. 28564 1993

Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)Mon Jul 13 13:38:17 2015

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.

28564 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSERohrabacher Slaughter TorricellRos-Lehtinen Smith (IA) TownsRone Smith (MI) TrafleantRostenkowski Smith (NJ) TuckerRoth Smith (OR) UnsoeldRoukema Smith (TX) UptonRowland Snowe ValentineRoybal-Allard Solomon VelazquezRoyce Spence VentoRush Spratt VisecloskySabo Stark VolkmerSanders Stearns VucanovichSangmelster Stenholm WalkerSantormn Stokes WalshSarpallus Strickland WashingtonSawyer Studds WatersSaxton Stump WattSchaefer Stupak WaxmanSchenk Sundqulst WeldonSchiff Swett WheatSchroeder Swift WhittenSchumer Synar WilliamsScott Talent WilsonSensenbrenner Tanner WiseSerrano Tauzin WolfSharp Taylor (MS) WoolseyShaw Taylor (NC) WydenShays Tejeda WynnShepherd Thomas (CA) YatesShuster Thomas (WY) Young (AK)Slsisky Thompson Young (FL)Skaggs Thornton ZeliffSkeen Thurman ZimmerSkelton TorkildsenSlattery Torres

NOES-2Moran Nadler

NOT VOTING-5Bartlett Romero-BarceloBrown (CA) (PR)Moakley Underwood (OU)

3 1306Mr. KLEIN changed his vote from

"no" to "aye."So the amendment was agreed to.The result of the vote was announced

as above recorded.The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to

consider amendment No. 2 printed inpart 2 of House Report 103-341.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. GEKASMr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an

amendment.The Clerk will designate the amend-

ment.The text of the amendment is as fol-

lows:Amendment offered by Mr. GEKAS: In para-

graph (1) of the matter proposed to be addedby section 2(a)(1) of the Committee amend-ment, strike "the Attorney General" and allthat follows through "section)," and insert"is 60 months after such date of enactment".

In paragraph (1)(D) of the matter proposedto be added by section 2(a)(1) of the Commit-tee amendment, strike ", except" and allthat follows through "Act".

In paragraph (1) of the matter proposed tobe added by section 2(b) of the Committeeamendment, insert "is 30 days after" before"the Attorney".

In paragraph (1) of the matter proposed tobe added by section 2(b) of the Committeeamendment, strike "certifies under section3(d)(1)" and insert "notifies licensees undersection 3(e)".

In paragraph (1) of the matter proposed tobe added by section 2(b) of the Committeeamendment, strike "(except as provided inparagraphs (2) and (3) such section)".

In paragraph (1)(B) of the matter proposedto be added by section 2(b) of the Committeeamendment, strike "(B)" and all that followsthrough "firearm" and insert the following:

"(B)(i) the system provides the licenseewith a unique identification number; or

"(ii) 1 business day (as defined in sub-section (s)(8)(B)) has elapsed since the end ofthe business day on which the licensee con-tacted the system, and the system has notnotified the licensee that the receipt of thehandgun.

In section 3(a) of the Committee amend-ment, strike "The" and insert "Not laterthan 60 months after the date of the enact-ment of this Act, the".

In section 3(c) of the Committee amend-ment-

(1) strike "(I)";(2) strike "(A) determine" and insert "(1)

determine";(3) strike "(B) investigate" and insert "(2)

investigate";(4) strike "(C) notify" and insert "(3) no-

tify";(5) strike "subparagraphs (A) and (B)" and

insert "paragraphs (1) and (2)"; and(6) strike paragraph (2).In section 3 of the Committee amendment,

strike subsection (d) and insert the follow-ing:

(d) OPERATION OF THE SYSTEM.-(1) GENERAL RULE.-If a licensee contacts

the national instant criminal backgroundcheck system with respect to a firearmtransfer, the system shall, during- the con-tact or by return contact without delay-

(A) review available criminal historyrecords to determine whether receipt of afirearm by the prospective transfer wouldviolate subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 oftitle 18, United States Code, or any State orlocal law; and

(B)(i) if the receipt would not be such aviolation-

(I) assign a unique identification numberto the transfer;

(II) provide the licensee with the identi-fication number; and

(II) immediately destroy all records of thesystem with respect to the contact (otherthan the identification number and the datethe number was assigned) and all records ofthe system relating to the transferee or thetransfer or derived therefrom; or

(i) if the receipt would be such a viola-tion-

(I) notify the licensee that the receiptwould be such a violation; and

(II) maintain the records created by thesystem with respect to the proposed transfer.

(2) SPECIAL RULE.-If a licensee contactsthe national instant criminal backgroundcheck system with respect to a firearmtransfer and the system is unable to complywith paragraph (1) during the contact or byreturn contact without delay, then the sys-tem shall comply with paragraph (1) notlater than the end of the next business day.

In section 4(a) of the Committee amend-ment-

(1) strike all that precedes "Section 509(b)"and insert "(a) USE OF FORMULA GRANTS.-";

(2) strike "(A) in" and insert "() in";(3) strike "(B) in" and insert "(2) in";(4) strike "(C) by" and insert "(3) by";(5) strike "(2) ADDITIONAL FUNDING" and In-

sert "(bI ADDITIONAL FUNDING";(6) strike "(A) GRANTS" and insert "(i)

GRANTS";(7) strike "(i)" and insert "(A)";(8) strike "(ii)" and insert "(B)";(9) strike "(ii)" and insert "(C)";(10) strike "(B) AUTHORIZATION" and insert

"(2) AUTHORIZATION"; and(11) strike "subparagraph (A)" and insert

"paragraph (1)".In section 4 of the Committee amendment,

strike subsection (b).

November 10, 1993The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the

rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania[Mr. GElAs] will be recognized for 25minutes, and a Member opposed to theamendment will be recognized for 25minutes.

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I risein opposition to the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlemanfrom New York [Mr. SCHUMER] will berecognized for 25 minutes.

Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I askunanimous consent that the amend-ment we are now considering be consid-ered as conforming to the amendmentat the desk.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlemanfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. GExAS] willstate his request to the Chair again.

Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I askunanimous consent that the amend-ment that we are about to consider beconsidered as conforming to theamendment that is at the desk.

0 1310The CHAIRMAN. The only form that

is in possession of the Chair is the formprinted in the report.

Mr. GEKAS. That Is correct. Theproblem is that there was some tech-nical error that was reported to us bythe Parliamentarian's office that re-quires us to consider the amendment asthe one that is now at the desk ratherthan the one that we have in our pos-session. It is only a question of clauseB or clause D or some technicality likethat.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair does nothave any modification along thoselines. We will proceed with the debateand consider the gentleman's technicalchanges later in the proceedings.

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I havebeen consulted by the gentleman as towhat the change was, but I would liketo see what it is at the desk and hearwhat is read before it is approved.

The CHAIRMAN. We will proceedwith the debate time presently.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania[Mr. GEKAS] will be recognized for 25minutes, and the gentleman from NewYork [Mr. SCHUMER] will be recognizedfor 25 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentlemanfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. GEICAS).

Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yieldmyself as much time as I mayconsume.

Mr. Chairman, as I outlined in thedebate on the rule, the amendmentthat we, now place before Members isone that can and should bring us to-gether. That is, the opponents of theBrady bill or any waiting period shouldsupport this measure because it bringsinto play, at long last, as a mandate,the instant check. The supporters ofthe Brady bill and the waiting periodthat it inculcates should support myamendment because it brings to thefloor and brings to the American peo-ple that which the proponents them-selves have said is the ultimate in

November 10, 1993background check, namely the instancheck. As a matter of fact, the proponents of the Brady waiting period, aoutlined in the bill, take pains to emphasize that that is the gist of this billthe heart and soul of this bill, the instant check, and then they relegate thwaiting period to a temporary concepthat should not go into effect until wcan get the perfect instant check thawe all desire, and the goal for which ware have made statements, make thatpossibility nationwide.

So what are we talking about here? Imy amendment is adopted, we wi]have a 5-day waiting period that thBrady bill in its concept claims. The:we have a time certain, 60 monthswithin which the instant check systermust go into effect. That is every littlto ask by way of a mandate when yo,consider that in committee and in conversation among people interested i:this issue, many of us felt that 3months would have been enough, anin conversations I had with the ohairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. BROOKS, Wfelt that maybe 48 months would bsufficient at one point.

Now we are making it foolprooiThere is no reason under the Sun, whe:considering all of the technology thawe have at our disposal, that we cannoput into effect a high-charged instancheck system by which backgrounchecks can be made on potential puichasers of handguns. Sixty months,mandate, reasonable.

We ask Members to accept thiamendment in the spirit of bringinthe sides together and making instancheck work, not to leave the instancheck illusory and atmospheric as it inow in the Brady bill.

The Brady bill now, if we leave it urtouched, if we do not amend it througamendment, would say the waiting penod will evaporate when and if somday in the next century perhaps whethe instant check might come into elfeet. No Attorney General has the mardate unless you adopt my amendmenl

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balancof my time.MCDIFICATION TO AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR

GEASThe CHAIRMAN. The Chair has noi

been informed of the modification thgentleman originally referenced in hiopening unanimous-consent request.

The Clerk will report the modificetion.

The Clerk read as follows:Modification to the amendment offered b

Mr. GEKAS: In the last two references to settion 4 of the committee amendment ohangthe reference to section 5.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objectioto the request of the gentleman frorPennsylvania that the amendment bmodified?

There was no objection.Amendment, as modified, offered by MI

GEAS: In paragraph (1) of the matter prt

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSEposed to be added by section 2(a)(1) of theCommittee amendment, strike "the Attor-ney General" and all that follows through"section)," and insert "is 60 months aftersuch date of enactment".

In paragraph (1)(D) of the matter proposedto be added by section 2(a)(1) of the Commit-tee amendment, strike ", except" and allthat follows through "Act".

In paragraph (1) of the matter proposed tobe added by section 2(b) of the Committeeamendment, insert "is 30 days after" before"the Attorney".

In paragraph (1) of the matter proposed tobe added by section 2(b) of the Committeeamendment, strike "certifies under section3(d)(1)" and insert "notifies licencees undersection 3(e)".

In paragraph (1) of the matter proposed tobe added by section 2(b) of the Committeeamendment, strike "(except as provided inparagraphs (2) and (3) of such section)".

In paragraph (1)(B) of the matter proposedto be added by section 2(b) of the Committeeamendment, strike "(B)" and all that followsthrough "firearm" and insert the following:

"(B)(i) the system provides the licenseewith a unique identification number; or

"(it) 1 business day (as defined In sub-section (s)(8)(B)) has elapsed since the end ofthe business day on which the licensee con-tacted the system, and the system has notnotified the licensee that the receipt of thehandgun".

In section 3(a) of the Committee amend-ment, strike "The" and insert "Not laterthan 60 months after the date of the enact-ment of this Act, the".

In section 3(c) of the Committee amend-ment-

(1) strike "(1)";(2) strike "(A) determine" and insert "(I)

determine".(3) strike "(B) investigate" and insert "(2)

investigate";(4) strike "(C) notify" and insert "(3) no-

tify";(5) strike "subparagraphs (A) and (B)" and

insert "paragraphs (1) and (2)"; and(6) strike paragraph (2).In section 3 of the Committee amendment,

strike subsection (d) and insert the follow-ing:

(d) OPERATION OF THE SYSTEM.-(1) GENERAL RULE.-If a licensee contacts

the national instant criminal backgroundcheck system with respect to a firearmtransfer, the system shall, during the con-tact or by return contact without delay-

(A) review available criminal historyrecords to determine whether receipt of afirearm by the prospective transferee wouldviolate subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 oftitle 18, United States Code, or any State orlocal law; and

(B)(i) if the receipt would not be such aviolation-

(I) assign a unique identification numberto the transfer;

(II) provide the licensee with the identi-fication number; and

(IM) immediately destroy all records of thesystem with respect to the contact (otherthan the identification number and the datethe number was assigned) and all records ofthe system relating to the transferee or thetransfer or derived therefrom; or

(1i) if the receipt would be such a viola-tion-

(I) notify the licensee that the receiptwould be such a violation; and(H) maintain the records created by the

system with respect to the proposed transfer.(2) SPECIAL RULE.-If a licensee contacts

the national instant criminal background

28565check system with respect to a firearmtransfer and the system Is unable to complywith paragraph (1) during the contact or byreturn contact without delay, then the sys-tem shall comply with paragraph (1) notlater than the end of the next business day.

In section 5(a) of the Committee amend-mnt-

(1) strike all that precedes "Section 509(b)"and insert "(a) UsE OF FORMULA GRANTS.-";

(2) strike "(A) in" and insert "(1) in";(3) strike "(B) in" and insert "(2) in";(4) strike "(C) by" and insert "(3) by";(5) strike "(2) ADDITIONAL FUNDINO" and in-

sert "(b) ADDITIONAL FUNDING";(6) strike "(A) GRANTS" and insert "(1)

GRANTS";(7) Strike "(i)" and insert "(A)";(8) Strike "(ii)" and insert "(B)";(9) Strike "(iWi)" and insert "(C)";(10) Strike "(B) AUTHORIZATION" and insert

"(2) AUTHORIZATION"; and(11) strike "subparagraph (A)" and insert

"paragraph (1)".In section 5 of the Committee amendment,

strike subsection (b).Mr. SHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield

2 minutes to the gentleman fromOklahoma (Mr. SYNAR] a distinguishedmember of the committee in opposi-tion.

Mr. SYNAR. Let us be honest withourselves and with the American peo-ple. This amendment, which would sun-set the 5-day waiting period after 5years, is being supported by those whowould prefer to have no 5-day waitingperiod altogether. This is simply a veryclever attempt to derail the 5-day wait-ing period.

There are two simple facts. The firstis that the Brady bill legislation al-ready has a very reasoned scheduledflexible provision with respect to sun-set. When the instant check is up andrunning, the 5-day waiting period ex-pires.

Second, the 5-day waiting periodworks. Whether you live in rural orurban America, across this country wehave seen success with waiting periods.In California in 1991 and 1992 literallythousands of guns were not on the mar-ket because of the waiting period. InAtlanta, Illinois, Delaware, Maryland,Nebraska, New Jersey, and Oregon, thesuccess is there. In Palm Beach Coun-ty, FL, in 1985 we had a 60-percentdropoff in homicides because of thewaiting period.

This amendment flies in the face ofthose two simple facts. Using the com-mon sense in this amendment, it is likeone who quits giving CPR emergencyhelp to a heart attack victim after 5minutes, regardless of recovery, or re-gardless of whether the paramedicshave arrived.

The Brady bill was introduced in1987. Six long murderous years havepassed. One hundred and fifty thousandof our best and brightest citizens havebeen killed by handguns since it wasfirst introduced. This is three timesthe number of casualties in Vietnam.

Law enforcement across the country,an overwhelming majority of our fel-low citizens, and a growing majority of

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD--HOUSE November 10, 1993our gun owners agree that reasonedgun 'legislation such as the Brady billis long overdue. Let us stay the course.Let us answer the call. Let us pass theBrady bill unamended.

Today's vote on the Brady handgun bill islong overdue. Since the Brady bill was first in-troduced in 1987, 150,000 people have beenkilled by handguns. That's almost 3 times thenumber of United States casualties in the Viet-nam war. That war was ended by one of themost aggressive protest movements in ourNation's history, Sadly, however, while thevast majority of our Nation wants real progressin the war on illegal handgun use we now rely

'on a patchwork of various State laws, plentyof cheap rhetoric and very little leadershipfrom our Federal Government. Today's votegives the House of Representatives a realchance to stem the violence on our streetsand calm the fear of our citizens.

Anyone who argues that the 5-day waitingperiod in the bill won't work hasn't looked atthe facts. California has a 15-day waiting pe-dod that, according to the California Depart-ment of Justice, Firearm Program, Criminal In-formation and Analysis Bureau stopped 5,859prohibited firearm sales during 1991 and 5,763during 1992. Those stopped from buying gunssince 1991 include: 71 convicted of homicide;14 convicted of kidnaping; 141 under restrain-ing order for domestic violence; 203 convictedof sex crimes; 537 found to be under age; 884convicted of burglary or robbery; 1,283 con-victed of dangerous drug offenses; and 5,772convicted of assaults.

Similar results have been recorded in At-lanta, GA (15-day waiting period), Illinois,Delaware, Maryland, Nebraska, New Jersey,Oregon. In Palm Beach County, FL police at-tributed a 60-percent drop in homicides in1985 to a waiting period enacted in 1984.

This past spring the Department of JusticeBureau of Justice Statistics did a survey ofState prison inmate characteristics. That studyfound that 46 percent of the inmates who hadcommitted a violent crime used a weapon. Inthe cases where a weapon was used, 24 per-cent used handguns, 11 percent used a knifeand 6 percent used a rifle, shotgun or assaultweapon. The study also found that of thoseprisoners who had ever possessed a hand-gun, 27 percent had purchased the gun froma retail outlet. Those that argue that criminalsget their guns illegally ignore the facts. TheJustice survey shows that more than a quarterof all criminals walk into a gun store to buytheir gun. This bill will make it harder for crimi-nals to get guns, period.

Because this bill makes it tougher for crimi-nals to get guns, Illegal handgun use will bereduced-it's just that simple. That's why Ican't understand those who want to sunset thewaiting period in 5 years, whether or not theinstant-check system is in place. That's likesaying you should stop giving emergency CPRto a heart attack victim after 5 minutes, re-gardless of whether the victim has recoveredor the paramedics have arrived.

The bill as drafted already phases out thewaiting period when an instant-check systemIs up and running. In addition, the bill includesa specific timetable for developing State in-stant-check systems with penalties against theStates and the Justice Department If time-

tables aren't met. But the bill does not, andmust not, phase out the 5-day waiting periodbefore the Instant check system Is In place. IfInstant check Isn't In place, and the bill sun-sets, criminals will once again be able to buyguns without a background check. That willput more guns in the hands of criminals andthat's unacceptable.

The time for debating the Brady bill Is over.The majority of the country agrees that theBrady bill Is a solid, commonsense approachto ending violence by denying guns to crimi-nals. Let's pass this bill and get on with thebusiness of saving lives.

Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield2 minutes to the distinguished gen-tleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks], chair-man of the full Committee on the Judi-ciary.

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I thankthe gentleman for yielding the time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of theamendment offered by the gentlemanfrom Pennsylvania.

A national instant background checksystem has been in the works nowsince 1988, when the Anti-Drug AbuseAct was adopted by the Congress andenacted into law.

Five years have passed since the en-actment of that law, and we still see noinstant background check system onthe horizon-even in the face of thetechnological revolution that has oc-curred in this country during thoseyears. Minnesota-built Cray supercom-puters run our worldwide nuclear de-tection system; and yet, we still can'tseem to develop a computer system tokeep track of a few felons in the 50states. I might add it took the wonder-ful Commonwealth of Virginia lessthan a year to bring its instant back-ground check on line.

If a national instant backgroundcheck system cannot be put into placein the next 5 years, it Is never going tobe put into place. We should not behere misleading the American peopleby pretending otherwise. While the na-tional instant check system is toutedas a "central premise" of the bill in itscurrent form, it is a premise with noteeth at all.

As I said earlier during general de-bate, acceptance of this amendmentwill be proof positive that there is areal commitment to implement the in-stant background check in H.R. 1025.

Not having a time certain for imple-mentation of a national instant back-ground check system actually serves asa disincentive to ever getting it inplace. If in 3 years, 4 years, or 5 years,there's still no such system, Congresscan always take action. But to duckthe issue now is utterly irresponsible.This amendment establishes a timecertain and demonstrates that we arekeeping our good faith with the Amer-ican people. I strongly urge its adop-tion.

03 1320Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I

yield 2 minutes to the distinguished

gentleman from Ohio [Mr. OxLEY], inopposition to the Gekas amendment.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise inopposition to the amendment, not nec-essarily because it is such a badamendment, because I think the gen-tleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. GEKAS]has a good idea here. I am just con-cerned that by setting an artificialdeadline as he does, that it does notrecognize the ability of some States orthe inability of some States to put to-gether the kind of records that theyneed to in that period of time.

I had my office check with t qe FBI.The FBI told us that under the verybest of circumstances they might beable to put together this national sys-tem within that time period but every-thing would have to happen exactlyright. I think the way the bill is craft-ed makes good sense. That is, it essen-tially phases out the waiting periodwhen each State is able to incorporateand put together the information aswell as the technology to do this.

Now, the technology clearly is there.No one would argue with that. But thefact is that a lot of States' records area horrible mess and it is going to takea long time for them to put that to-gether.

Indeed the information in the NCICcomputer is meaningless unless the in-formation is correct and up to date.

That is why I think it is importantthat we reject the Gekas amendment. Ilike the idea of putting some pressureon to get the records done, but I amnot sure that by setting this deadlinewe do that and accomplish the missionthat we want to accomplish.

So I would say I just, on balance,think the Gekas amendment puts astranglehold on the ability of the FBIand other law enforcement officialsand State officials to get the informa-tion necessary.

Mr. Chairman, we had this, if youwill recall, those Members who werehere before, with the Staggers amend-ment, which in many ways was an ef-fort to derail the potential for a 5-daywaiting period, as well as phasing inthis point-of-sale check. This is essen-tially Staggers-II, and I think It is awrongheaded approach, even though Irespect the gentleman from Pennsylva-nia.

Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from Vir-ginia (Mr. GOODLATTE].

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gen-tleman for yielding this time to me.

Mr. Chairman, this is a bad bill thatdoes not do anything effective to keepweapons out of the hands of criminals,but burdens law-abiding citizens. Butthis is a reasonable and essentialamendment which guarantees we willhave a national instant check systemin 5 years. We could have this in placein 30 months or sooner if we resolve todo so, but we certainly must do it with-in 5 years.

28566

November 10, 1993 CMr. Chairman, as written, H.R. 1025

gives the Attorney General unfettereddiscretion to maintain the waiting pe-riod forever and there will be pressurefrom waiting period advocates to dojust that.

The national instant check is theonly system that will keep guns out ofthe hands of criminals and protect therights of lawabiding citizens. That iswhy we must guarantee that it is in ef-fect within 5 years.

Five years Is a more than adequateamount of time to complete work onthe FBI instant record retrieval sys-tem. Remember, the FBI has beenworking on its system for 5 years al-ready and Congress has appropriatedconsiderable amounts for that task.

Instant check has been proven towork In five States, including my Stateof Virginia. Virginia, Delaware, Flor-ida, Illinois, and Wisconsin now suc-cessfully operate point-of-sale back-ground check systems which they im-plemented in less than 1 year's timeand at relatively modest cost.

To date the Virginia system hasprocessed over one-half million trans-actions and has denied over 5,500 pur-chases. In addition, 318 wanted felonswere identified because of the check.Clearly the system is doing what it isintended to do.

My question is, Why wait when thetechnology for instant check is avail-able? I urge my colleagues to supportthis reasonable amendment.

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, Iyield 2 minutes to the distinguishedgentleman from Georgia (Mr. LEwIs].

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. I thank thegentleman for yielding this time to me.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support theBrady bill and to oppose the Gekasamendment.

The Brady bill is a first step downthe long road toward stopping the pro-liferation of handguns. It Is a step to-ward ending the violence that is sweep-ing our country. It is a step we musttake.

We have seen to many tragic deathsin Atlanta, here in Washington,throughout the Nation. I have been totoo many funerals of the very young, ofpolice officers, and the many otherswho have been killed by guns. We mustact to stop the bloodshed, to stop thekilling.

Throughout our Nation, the homiciderate has reached an all-time high. Gunviolence is increasing and somethinghas to be done.

As lawmakers, we have a responsibil-ity to stop the killing. Law enforce-ment officers around the country, thepeople who must deal with the guns,the violence, the deaths, law enforce-ment officers agree, passing the Bradybill will help stop the violence.

The Gekas amendment could have usget rid of the waiting period before theinstant-check system is in place. Itcould have us go back to selling guns

ONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSEto people without checking to see ifthey are criminals, or insane.

I ask my colleagues, is 5 days toolong to wait to ensure that we are notarming the violent? Is 5 days too longto wait to save lives? To ensure thatinnocent children are not shot?

Let me say to my colleagues that itis time to stop the violence. It is timeto stop the killing to save lives. It istime to give people time to cool off. Donot sunset the Brady bill. Support theBrady bill. Oppose the Gekas amend-ment.

Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from Geor-gia [Mr. BISHOP].

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I rise insupport of the Gekas amendment.Those who champion the Brady bill tellus they want to stop illegal handgunsales. If that is the case, the best wayto achieve this goal would be by scrap-ping the interim waiting period infavor of immediate implementation ofa national point-of-sale screening sys-tem. This amendment requires it with-in 5 years.

We all agree there is limited utilityin screening retail handgun purchasersbecause, according to the Justice De-partment, the vast majority of crimi-nals do not attempt to purchase fire-arms at retail outlets. But to the ex-tent such a system is worthwhile, apoint-of-purchase check best meetsthis goal. That is why it is absolutelynecessary that a time certain for theactual on-line implementation of sucha system be designated.

There are no enforceable standards inthe Brady bill with regard to time-tables, goals, or penalties. The bill es-sentially leaves the implementation tothe discretion of the Attorney General.Further, it provides no funding to locallaw enforcement to pay for the interimmandatory background checks, man-dates without funding.

Penalties will ostensibly be leviedagainst the Department of Justice'smonthly administrative fees.

0 1330A strong case can be made that the

ability of Congress to rescind funds ap-propriated by one Congress if standardsimposed by this bill are not met in asubsequent Congress, is constitu-tionally prohibited.

There are about 2 million newhandgun purchases yearly, as comparedto 70 million plus credit care checks,which are conducted each month. Thenotion that adequate technology existsto prevent shoppers from overchargingtheir credit cards, but does not exist tocheck the identification of a handgunpurchaser against a list of existingcriminal records, is absurd.

The fact is, all background checksare exactly the same. They use thesame information data. That is the FBIInterstate Identification Index, whichis the base on which we should be rely-

28567Ing and which is currently being usedfor exactly this purpose.

At this point, the best public policyresult is to set the date to implementthe same system on a national and uni-form basis. If we can check credit cardpurchases instantaneously, if we canhave our policemen check drivingrecords instantaneously, then certainlywe can check criminal histories instan-taneously.

Support the Gekas amendment.Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I

yield 2 minutes to the distinguishedvice chairman of the Democratic cau-cus, the gentleman from California[Mr. FAZIO).

Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I believethe new sunset provision, the Gekasamendment, is really nothing morethan an effort to undermine the wholeBrady bill. There is already a sunsetprovision in place. The gentleman fromOklahoma [Mr. SYNAR] described itvery accurately. There is a specifictimetable for getting the Instant checksystem up and running, and I think weall want that to occur. As soon as thesystem is operating as it should be, thewaiting period sunsets; but the Gekasamendment wipes out the 5-day wait-ing period in 5 years and replaces itwith the instant check system, in spiteof the fact that all the experts have in-dicated that the instant check systemwill not be ready then. Five years downthe road, the Gekas amendment willbring us right back to where we aretoday wherever the instant check sys-tem is not ready. So let us keep thepressure on to put the instant checksystem in place first before we elimi-nate the 5-day waiting period.

The Brady bill is not intended as apanacea for crime, not the kind ofcrime that is plaguing us in city sub-urbs and rural areas; but it is our besteffort toward stemming gun-related vi-olence. It is the most realistic, effi-cient, and accurate option currentlyavailable to us.

In California, our 15-day waiting pe-riod is already working. Last yearalone, my State stopped 5,763 illegalhandgun purchases.

So now the time has come for us as anation to take this first of many stepstoward keeping guns out of the wronghands, and preventing the tragedy thatresults from the easy availability ofguns to the wrong people.

Surely this is a small price to pay tocurb the unnecessary and senseless vio-lence caused by handguns, and surelywe understand that we cannot simplyhave State laws that do not allow forpeople in all States to be secure.

We need a national law that sets astandard, not the highest standard, buta reasonable standard that is fair to allthe States that have acted.

We will get instant check, but untilthen we need the Brady bill.

Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from Califor-nia [Mr. CUNNINGHAM].

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE November 10, 1993Mr. CUNNINGHAM, Mr. Chairman,

my friend, the gentleman from Califor-nia, is dead wrong. The Brady bill itselfrecognizes the value of an instantcheck system.

Let us take a look under the presentsystem of the Brady bill or the 5-daycheck. Local law enforcement gets arequest and has to process It within 5days. Does anyone in the inner citieshave enough dollars for their local lawenforcement? This is an unfunded man-date, We would rather have those copson the street, not dealing with admin-istrative burdens.

Second, the instant check would givenot just the District of Columbia orVirginia or any other State a locallook at who should purchase weapons,but a national system. If you havesomeone who has checked into a policestation and filed, that automaticallywould go on to a system where Virginiaor California or anyone else wouldknow whether that person should orshould not purchase a weapon. It is abetter system. It has been agreed thatit is a better system. The problem iscost.

So if it is a better system, it seemslogical that we set a 5-year period.

I have also checked, as has my friend,the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. OXLEY]with the FBI, and it will be imple-mented and could be within 5 years.That is why we set the time.

If this is the case, then we need to goto an instant check.

Will it keep guns off the street? No,it will not, Mr. Chairman. We needtough crime laws, but the same peoplewho are opposing this amendment, Iwould ask them to support habeas cor-pus, the death penalty, search and sei-zure, three-time loser, life without pa-role.

In California, 13 percent of all illegalaliens are felons. We need to help withthat system, which the Federal Gov-ernment is not doing.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask my friend,the gentleman from California, to sup-port these issues and a strong crimebill and support the instant check,which would be a better system.

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, Iyield 2 minutes to the gentleman fromIllinois [Mr. PORTER], in opposition tothe Gekas amendment.

Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, our so-ciety is overwhelmed with violence.Our entertainment news almost en-courages this kind of violence.

The question is what to do about it?Some say, and the previous speaker

was one who Just said it, that we needstronger penalties, more expeditiousappeals and the deterrent effect of pun-ishment. Others say we need restrainton the availability of handguns and as-sault weapons.

We really need both. It is not an ei-ther-or question. We ought to do both.

The Gekas amendment, it seems tome, is simply at attempt to derail the

Brady bill. The instant check systemwill not be ready when this provisionsunsets. It will leave, criminals to buyguns without restraint by the FederalGovernment, and adoption of the pre-emption amendment, without any re-straint by State law, either, seems tome mindless.

We need a restraint on the readyavailability of firearms and we needstronger penalties, more expeditiousappeals and the deterrent effect of pun-ishment and we ought to pursue both.

The Gekas amendment should be de-feated. The Brady bill should be adopt-ed as is. I strongly urge the Membersto oppose the Gekas amendment.

Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, will thegentleman yield?

Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gen-tleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, does thegentleman from Illinois believe thatthe sponsor of the Gekas amendmentdoes not have guidance or conscienceor his own to propel this amendment,or does the gentleman feel it is NRAdriven?

Mr. PORTER. No, I do not believethat.

Mr. GEKAS. Then the gentleman'sreferences to the NRA are general, notspecifically to the author of theamendment?

Mr. PORTER. Yes, to NRA, yes. Ithink the NRA would strongly supportthe gentleman's amendment.

Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from Min-nesota (Mr. MINOE].

Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I rise as asupporter of the time-certain amend-ment for two reasons. First, I believemost all Americans--both supportersand opponents of the Brady bill-agreethat an instant check system for thepurchase of handguns should be imple-mented. Second, it should take far lessthan 5 years to install the technologyneeded to conduct these instant back-ground checks.

The Brady bill is written so that onceall States are on-line for national in-stant-checks, the waiting period isphased out. Because the instant checkis the goal and since it is easily allow-able-it only makes sense that the leg-islation have a firm time limit for in-stant check. The instant check systemis more effective in keeping guns out ofthe hands of criminals and those sub-jected to restraining orders because itidentifies them immediately andrecords in a nationwide computer sys-tem that a certain violent individualattempted to purchase a handgun.

I support this amendment because Iwant rapid installation of the instant-check technology. Under the measure,the nationwide instant-check systemwould be established when 80 percent ofcurrent criminal records nationwideare available to the system. It shouldnot take more than 5 years to comput-erize these records.

We are all familiar with credit cards.When we use a company's credit cardto make a purchase, their computersystems can-in a matter of seconds-analyze our entire credit history. Cred-it card companies have been doing thisfor years.

Why cannot the Justice Departmentand the States be able to computerizetheir records by the year 1999?

I disagree with the opponents of thisamendment and remain optimisticabout this country's technology. Howcan we support billions of dollars forinformation superhighways and expectto reform the healthcare system in twoyears if we can't get on-line with an in-stant-check system in 5 years?

The technology is available. Let ustake advantage of it. And sooner-rath-er than later-let us get to the crux ofthis bill and provide a real incentivefor immediate and instant backgroundchecks.

I urge my colleagues to vote "yes"on the Gekas time-certain amendment.

3 1340Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I

yield 1 minutes to the distinguishedgentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms.DELAURO], a strong advocate in opposi-tion.

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Chairman, thereare children in my district whose par-ents will not let them play outside be-cause they are afraid they are going tobe killed, children who live in fear ofhandguns. One student in my districtcame to school and told her teacherthat she could not take an importanttest, and the teacher asked why. Theyoung woman said she was too upsetbecause on her way to school thatmorning she saw someone get shot inthe head.

Mr. Chairman, students in my dis-trict describe in frightening detail theguns owned by people that they know.

Mr. Chairman, if we adopt theamendment offered by the gentlemanfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. GEKAS] we areturning our backs on our children.Keep the pressure on for an instantcheck, but, if we let this amendmentpass, criminals will be able to buy gunswithout a background check if thewaiting period sunsets before instantcheck is ready. We cannot take thatchance.

This is an attempt to cripple theBrady bill, but the American peopletoday are demanding serious action tostop senseless violence. Do not cripplethe Brady bill. It is one step that wecan and must take today to help tostop the bloodshed and to remove thatfear of death that is overwhelming toomany of our children.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleaguesto oppose the Gekas amendment.

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN. The Chair admon-

ishes our guests in the gallery thatthey should refrain from expressing ei-ther agreement or disagreement with

28568

November 10, 1993 Cany of the remarks being made on thefloor.

Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1minute to the gentleman from Virginia(Mr. PAYNE].

Mr. PAYNE of Virginia. Mr. Chair-man, I rise in support of the Gekasamendment to the Brady bill. Each ofus in the Congress is concerned aboutthe rising violence in this country, andeach of us share a common goal, andthat is to keep the guns out of thehands of criminals. I believe that set-ting a time certain of 5 years for theimplementation of a national instantcheck system will go a long way inkeeping guns out of the hands of crimi-nals.

My own State of Virginia has had asuccessful instant background checkrun by the State police since November1989. The system was operational injust 6 months after initiation with astartup cost of Just over $300,000, andsince 1989, Mr. Chairman, Virginia hasfielded over one-half million purchaserequests. Of these requests, almost6,000 were denied based on lawful ineli-gibility.

Mr. Chairman, I believe a nationwidebackground check implemented within5 years is a positive step in reachingour common goal, which is keeping theguns out of the hands of criminals, andI urge my colleagues to support theGekas amendment.

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, Iyield 2 minutes to the distinguishedgentleman from California (Mr. ED-WARDS), a member of the committeeand an expert on criminal justice.

Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr.Chairman, I thank the gentleman fromNew York (Mr. SCHUMER] for yieldingthis time to me, and, coming fromCalifornia, Mr. Chairman, I can certifythat a waiting period is very valuable.In the last couple of years we have over16,000 people who were disqualifiedfrom purchasing weapons. Eight thou-sand of these people had convictions ofhomicide or of assault. These were vi-cious people that should not be buyingguns.

Now my friend, our colleague, thegentleman from Pennsylvania, is anopponent, a strong opponent, honorableopponent, of the Brady bill. He votedagainst it in committee and has alwaysbeen against the Brady bill, and I thinkit is very clear, and I am sure he willadmit that this amendment is designedas a destroyer of the Brady bill becauseit will. It destroys the waiting periodafter 5 years.

The subcommittee that I chair hasJurisdiction over the FBI. The FBI iscomplying with the law passed in 1988.The McCollum amendment does pro-vide for an instant check system and tohave spent in the last 5 years nearly $50million in implementing an instantcheck system. But they are quite along way from getting there, Mr.Chairman. There are over 25 million ar-

ONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSErest records, a third of them, perhapsmore than a third of them, do not haveconnected to them whether or notthere was a conviction, and you cannotuse a naked arrest record without find-ing out whether or not this is a convic-tion. That would be a wrong thing todo.

So, Mr. Chairman, all the amend-ment is designed to do is shut down thesystem after 5 years, and there is noway that the FBI can complete thiswork. It is going to take more than 5years, and then the automatic endingof the waiting period will come into ef-fect as provided In the Brady bill, andthe instant check system will workvery well then, and we are all for it.

Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2minutes to the distinguished gen-tleman from Michigan [Mr. DINGELL].

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I risein strong support of the Gekas amend-ment. I commend the gentleman fromPennsylvania and the distinguishedchairman of the Committee on the Ju-diciary for authoring and supportingthis proposal. Our objective is to pre-vent crime and to prevent criminalsand persons with criminal records fromobtaining firearms. I say to my col-leagues, you can accomplish this by asimple point of sales screening systemfor handgun purchasers. That's the waythat you prevent crime, and keepcriminals from having handguns.

This amendment makes good sense.The amendment simply requires 5years to accomplish this purpose. Atthe conclusion of 5 years, the Bradybill would cease to be functional.Clearly we have the offer of a bettersystems of dealing with the acquisitionof handguns by criminals.

Mr. Chairman, a criminal, or personwho is ineligible to purchase a hand-gun, will be, under this system, identi-fied instantly at the point of sale. FiveStates already have programs of thiskind. They are working splendidly. Isee no reason why it should not occurnationwide, and why we should nothave a nationwide system which willprovide a mandate that the AttorneyGeneral, and State law enforcementauthorities bring this system intobeing. Five years is long enough.

I urge my colleagues to support thisamendment. It is sensible; it is fair; itis something which sportsmen and oth-ers can support; it Is an amendmentwhich I can support; and, I urge mycolleagues to join me in supporting thedistinguished gentleman from Penn-sylvania, the distinguished chairman ofthe Committee on the Judiciary andresponsible sportsmen in supportingthis proposal.

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, Iyield 1 minute to the distinguishedgentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.BLACKWELL].

Mr. BLACKWELL. Mr. Chairman, Irise in support of H.R. 1025, the BradyHandgun Violence Prevention Act.

28569Drug-driven violence and crime is en-

gulfing this Nation like the recentCalifornia fires, destroying everythingin its path, disrupting families, takinglives.

The problem is so pervasive and sopenetrating that, according to a recentWashington Post report, young, adoles-cent people are planning their funerals,instead of planning their futures.

These young people believe that theyare destined to die because handgunsare as easily and readily available ashot dogs and candy.

Unfortunately, the fears of our youngare well placed. In America today, ayoung man is more likely to die fromhandgun violence than he is from auto-mobile accidents, disease, or othermethods of death.

The Brady bill offers a simple, yet ef-fective solution to this nationalplague. It requires potential handgunpurchasers to wait 5 days before pur-chasing, thereby allowing the police anopportunity to check their eligibility.

If you are not underage, if you arenot a convicted felon, or if you are nototherwise incompetent, you can buy agun. Why would anyone who intends touse a gun lawfully have a problem withthe waiting requirement?

We are moving quickly to strengthenlaw enforcement and provide more re-sources. The crime bill will allot $22.3billion for anticrime efforts and put100,000 more officers on the street.

The bill authorizes $100 million annu-ally to help States update their crimi-nal records and make use of a nationalregistry.

But, unless we take the guns fromthe hands of those who would misusethem, Including young people who arenot even old enough to drive, handgunhomicides will continue to dominateour death statistics for years and yearsto come.

Time is running out. It will take 5 to10 years to put an effective system inplace. Must we put at risk another gen-eration of those who, in the dawn oftheir lives, think more about how theywant to die than how they want tolive?

Let us plan the funeral for handgunviolence. Let's give our youth a chanceat life. Let us pass the Brady bill.

0 1350Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2

minutes to the gentleman from Califor-nia [Mr. BAKER].

Mr. BAKER of California. Mr. Chair-man, the Gekas amendment is aboutfighting crime instead of making head-lines. Like most Americans, I want topass legislation to keep guns out of thehands of criminals and unstable indi-viduals. We have to prevent criminalsfrom getting guns while still allowinglaw abiding citizens to obtain arms forsport and self-protection, withoutundue government harassment. That iswhy I support an instant check.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE November 10, 1993An instant check would provide im-

mediate information about a gun pur-chaser's criminal history. But let mebe clear: waiting periods alone do notwork. In 1985, California passed a 15-day waiting period. Before that time,we had a homicide rate well below theU.S. rate. After that time, the rate hasskyrocketed. There is no correlationbetween waiting periods and crime. Butan instant' check would be able to saywe will take the guns out of the handsof those who have an unstable recordor who are criminals.

There are 200 million guns in circula-tion. Are we being honest when we tellthe public that if you pass a 5-daywaiting period, we will stop dangerouscrime in its tracks? We are not beinghonest.

The instant check will keep anycriminals or unstable individuals fromgetting guns. Liberals want to keepguns out of the hands of dangerous per-sons. Conservatives want to do that,and protect the rights of homeowners,sportsmen, and business owners.

If we support the instant check, aswell as the Brady bill, we can stopmaking headlines, start making goodlaw, and protect the people of the Unit-ed States of America.

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, Iyield 1 minute to the distinguishedgentlewoman from New York [Mrs.MALONEY], who has been a strong advo-cate of this bill.

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I risein opposition to the sunset amend-ment, and In support of the bill.

The Brady bill is long overdue. It isoverdue for Jim Brady. It is overduefor John Lennon and Robert Kennedyand all the tens of thousands of Ameri-cans who are killed or maimed everyyear by deranged or angry people.

Handguns play a leading role in vir-tually every category of crimethroughout our country. They are easyto buy, easy to hide, and easy to use.

That's why I am particularly opposedto this sunset amendment, whichwould arbitrarily cancel the waitingperiod even if an effective computer-ized checking system were not yet inplace.

Under this amendment, criminalswould be able to buy guns without abackground check, if instant-check hasnot gone on line.

That makes no sense at all, and al-lows a technology timetable to derailour need to protect innocent peoplefrom those who should not have hand-guns.

Please vote against the sunsetamendment, and for the Brady bill.

Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from Okla-homa [MR. BREWSTER].

Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. Chairman, Irise today in support of the amendmentof the gentleman from Pennsylvania[Mr. GEKAS]. The gentleman's amend-ment would establish a time certain of

5 years for implementation of the na-tional instant-check system. Historyshows that such a timeframe is emi-nently workable. Virginia was the firstState In the Nation to adopt a systemof instant background checks. The leg-islation was passed in March 1989 andthe system went online November 1,1989, 10 months later. The time whichelapsed shows that it can certainly bedone. In very similar timeframes sys-tems went online in the States of Dela-ware, Wisconsin, and Illinois. Floridapassed an instant-check system in 1989that took effect in early 1991.

History also shows the instant-checksystem works. Virginia's State policelieutenant, Jim Snow, a records man-agement officer, was asked last June ifan extra 5 days would allow a morethorough check. His answer to theWashington Post was, "No, not really.We can check what needs to be checkedin 2 minutes or less."

Today two-thirds of America's popu-lation lives under a waiting period pro-gram similar to Brady. Those Statesalso have the highest murder rates andthe highest crime rates in America.

The instant-check system makessense because it works. I think that itis time that this Nation moves towardchecking violent criminals. But, makeno mistake, the only thing that deterscrime is punishment or fear of punish-ment. Justice must be swift and sure.

Today's criminal justice system isbroken. In New York alone it takes 5years for the average felony to go totrial.

I would encourage my colleagues tosupport the Gekas amendment. Itmoves in the right direction to stop thecrime wave in this Nation.

Mr. SCHEUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield1 minute to the distinguished gen-tleman from Kentucky [Mr. MAZZOLI] along-time supporter of the bill.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Mr. Chairman, Ithank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposi-tion to the amendment of the gen-tleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.GEKAS]. I really think that, were thisamendment to be adopted, the Bradybill itself will be eviscerated. I think itwill have relatively less meaning.

Mr. Chairman, I would remind mycolleagues that in the bill, as fashionedby the gentleman from New York [Mr.SCHUMER], in it is very strong encour-agement to the Justice Department toget moving with the task of developingthis instant check system, because theDepartment can lose money if it failsto move forward. Then there are en-couragements, as well as dissuasions,to the States on getting the comput-erization of their State records done.So we already have in the bill strongincentives to reach this 5-year deadlinefor putting instant check in service.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think we needthis further amendment, which would,of course, create possibly a gap in

background checks once the five yearsof Brady end. So you would have a gappossibly before instant check went in.

I do not think it is a good idea. Ithink the amendment should be de-feated.

Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yieldsuch time as he may consume to thegentleman from Texas [Mr. SMITH].

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, Ithank the gentleman for yielding timeto me.

Mr. Chairman, I rise In support of thisamendment. Some Members feel they canvote for this legislation because the waitingperiod Is only temporary, before a national in-stant-check system Is established. But as thesaying goes, there Is nothing more permanentthan a temporary govemment program.

Under this bill, the waiting period can bepostponed indefinitely if the Attorney Generaldecides to do so.

It took Virginia less than a year to bring itsInstant-check system on line. Shouldn't wehold the implementation by other States to asimilar time frame? Thirty months is a reason-able amount of time to give States to Imple-ment the instant check provisions. Sixtymonths, as Mr. GEKAS proposes In his amend-ment, Is more than enough time to bring thisnational system on-line.

Do not be fooled. Opponents of this amend-ment have only one wish-to drag out thewaiting period indefinitely.

H.R. 1025 contains more loopholes than abandolier. For any number of reasons, the At-tomey General can postpone the certificationof the national instant-check system--mean-while infringing upon the constitutional rightsof law-abiding citizens.

The only real answer to gun violence isswift, severe, and guaranteed punishment forpeople who misuse guns. That is what weshould be considering here today.

Instead, we are likely to help the criminalmore than we are the victim with this bill byplacing restrictions on the self defense of law-abiding citizens.

I urge my colleagues to support the Gekasamendment and provide a sunset provision tothe 5-day waiting period.

Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield11/2 minutes to the gentleman fromTexas [Mr. GENE GREEN].

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr.Chairman, I thank the gentleman foryielding time to me.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in supportof the Gekas amendment which will seta 5-year period for there to be a na-tional instant check system for thepurchase of a handgun. Backgroundchecks work; waiting periods do not.By passing this amendment, we canachieve the objectives of the Brady billby identifying criminals who attemptto purchase handguns immediately. Weneed to keep handguns out of the handsof criminals.

We will also protect the rights oflaw-abiding citizens by not delayingtheir right to purchase a handgun. Bypassing the Gekas amendment we willhave the assurance that in the futurean instant check system will be in

28570

November 10, 1993 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD--HOUSEplace. This system will be safer than awaiting period and far more effectivekeeping guns out of the hands of crimi-nals.

0 1400Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I

yield 2 minutes to the gentleman fromMaryland [Mr. HoYER], the distin-guished chairman of the Democraticcaucus.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise insupport of the Brady bill, a bill whichwill impose a 5-day waiting period be-fore an individual can purchase a hand-gun. I would like to commend thechairman of the Judiciary Committee,JACK BROOKS, and subcommittee chair-man, CHUCK SCHUMER, for their dili-gence and hard work in crafting a billthat takes a serious approach to fight-ing crime in our communities.

Mr. Chairman, violence associatedwith guns In America Is reaching epi-demic proportions. For this reason,this Nation Is in urgent need of passageof the Brady bill. The bill before ustoday seeks to return an element ofsafety and security back to us by wag-ing a fast and furious war againstcrime.

Mr. Chairman, the Brady bill hasbeen held hostage for much too long. Itdoes not, as opponents argue, undercutthe rights of individuals who have a le-gitimate reason to own a gun. Twenty-two States, including my own State ofMaryland, have already Implementedprocedures similar to and more strin-gent than the Brady provisions. AsFederal lawmakers, it Is time we dothe same.

Mr. Chairman, too many law enforce-ment personnel and Americans havesuffered severe losses due to the in-creased use in handguns. Therefore, wemust pass this legislation for law en-forcement to aid them in their dailybattles on the streets of America andwe must pass this legislation for theAmerican people so that we can move astep closer to eliminating their fears.

Mr. Chairman, we cannot stand for aweakening of the Brady bill. The Gekasamendment offered here today seeks todilute the substance of this bill. Thesunset provision offered by Congress-man GEIKAS would effectively abolishthe waiting period after 5 years with-out regard to the readiness of the na-tional insta-check system.

According to the bill in its presentform, States will be required to have 80percent of their recent case disposi-tions computerized within 5 years. Atthat time, the insta-check systemwould replace the 5-day waiting period.Thus, there is no need to modify thissection of the bill with an amendmentthat will diminish the hard work we allhave put in to finally making theBrady bill a reality.

Mr. Chairman, this bill is not goingto eradicate crime in our society, butit is a big step in the right direction.

The Brady bill can effectively deterthose individuals who might be able topurchase a handgun for unlawful pur-poses.

Mr. Chairman, I would urge the oppo-nents of the Brady bill to face realityand understand; it is better to save atleast one life by passing this legisla-tion than to lose a life by not passingit.

Mr. GEKAS, Mr. Chairman, I yieldsuch time as he may consume to thegentleman from Missouri [Mr. VOLK-MER].

Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I risein support of the Gekas amendment.

Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield1 minutes to the gentleman fromTexas [Mr. BROOKS].

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, this in-stant check was provided for In theoriginal gun bill language with noteeth, no incentive to really do it. Nowthe waiting period created in H.R.1025-which some think is written instone somewhere--has just been pickedout of thin air. It is only a means to anend.

What they are trying to achieve is acheck on criminals who attempt topurchase guns,-felons. That is whatthey are trying to get.

My theory is this, why wait 5 days?Why wait 3 days? Why wait 2? Whywait 1? Why not just do it instantly.Put the system on the line, put an in-stant check availability in every Statein this country. It can be done techno-logically, off-the-shelf. It is that sim-ple. It Is already done In five States. Itcan be done in 50.

There is no excuse for not adoptingthis amendment which provides a realincentive for instant check in this bill.Instant check is in the bill as origi-nally written, and I think that this billIs enhanced considerably by instantcheck that would take effect in 5 yearswith no mistake about it.

We have a good case for this amend-ment. The gentleman from Pennsylva-nia (Mr. GEKAS] has worked hard try-ing to perfect it, trying to make thisbill workable. I think we ought to sup-port this amendment.

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, Iyield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, here we are, debatingthis amendment, and I think thisamendment is some small sign ofprogress. Those opposed to the Bradybill altogether, even they have con-ceded that it ought to exist for at least5 years. And so the NRA and those inopposition, realizing they cannot beatBrady head on, realizing they cannoteven, as last year, replace Brady withinstant check, have now said some-thing that seems alluring: "Let's havea sunset after 5 years when the instantcheck goes into effect."

The thing we have to understand, mycolleagues, is there is already a sunsetin this bill, but it is a logical sunset. Itsays, when instant check is in place,

whenever that may be, because there isa great deal of dispute as to when Itwill be, then Brady sunsets.

If, as the experts say, the AttorneyGeneral, the FBI, the nonpartisan Re-search Group, which is the expertgroup on criminal records, that it willtake more than 5 years to got this sys-tem in place, which we know it will,because criminal records are a mess.they are not like credit card records.They have been done by local govern-ments, not by a big profitmaking insti-tution. They are in shoe boxes. Theyare not coordinated. Then we have togo to each courthouse and see if thecase was overturned.

It will not be done in 5 years. And soI would say to every one of my col-leagues, if they vote for this amend-ment, they are voting for 5 years ofprogress and then regression whenthere will be nothing.

I would particularly speak to thesmall number of my colleagues whohave the balance of power in thisamendment, who support Brady but arethinking of voting for this amendment.

I ask my colleagues to ask them-selves, everyone who has offered thisamendment and spoken for this amend-ment has one thing in common, even ifthis amendment passes, they will voteagainst Brady. They are not supportersof a waiting period at all. They are notsupporters of doing anything logicalabout guns, in my judgment.

This amendment is intended by theopponents of Brady to weaken Brady.So if my colleagues are a supporter ofBrady, if they are thinking of votingfor Brady, do not try to fool everybodyby saying, "Well, I will vote yes onthis, please the NRA, and then vote yeson Brady." It will not work.

Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yieldmyself such time as I may consume.

The argument is over for the pur-poses of delivering one's vote on theGekas amendment, but I repeat, onething is clear, or I hope it is clear tothe American public, even the oppo-nents of the Gekas amendment con-cede, or they should concede, that theinstant check is the methodology toutilize for background checks of would-be purchasers of guns at the gun deal-er's shop.

The instant check, why Is that sopreferable to everyone?

First of all, the law-abiding citizen,who has some kind of an emergency, acrime spree in the neighborhood, a se-ries of rapes that have aroused thefears among women in a certain areawho feel that they must have a weaponat their disposal, for those people whoneed the emergency type of help andfor law-abiding citizens who have noth-ing to fear from any background check,naturally, the instant check is thepreferable way to go.

And the proponents of the waitingperiod must concede that this is pref-erable, too, because the felon who dares

28571

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE November 10, 1993to go to a gun dealer's shop to purchasea gun, the few that do, most of themsteal them or get them through theblack market, those individuals whoare not caught give reason and ration-ale to the instant check that we are es-pousing.

And so when we propose now a 5-yearperiod within which the Attorney Gen-eral, already having 5 years to developtechnology, I believe we are on theverge of completion of a nationwidesystem. Only 80 percent is almost done,we believe. One hundred percent can becompleted well within the 5 years.

So are we not in the same ballpark?Should not that compromise that thegentleman from New York [Mr. SCHU-MER] is articulating apply to support ofthe Gekas amendment, not to the de-feat of it? Because support of theGekas amendment says that Membersprefer the instant check. Everybodydoes. The proponents of the waiting pe-riod prefer the instant check, and weprefer it.

The only legal and proper and legisla-tive way to push the Attorney Generaland our technology experts to the fi-nalization of the instant check system,the Gekas amendment can make thatprevail.

0 1410Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I

yield my remaining time to the distin-guished gentleman from South Caro-lina [Mr. DERRICK], a supporter of thebill and an opponent of the amendmentoffered by the gentleman from Penn-sylvania [Mr. GEKAS].

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlemanfrom South Carolina [Mr. DERRICK] isrecognized for 3 minutes.

Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Chairman, I risein opposition to the amendment.

Clearly America is fighting somekind of internal war, which is escalat-ing, destroying more and more lives. Itis a crisis intensified by the easy avail-ability of handguns on our streets. Fi-nally Congress is taking a hard look atthe situation. The Brady bill honestlybegins to deal with the problem. It is asane, compassionate and effective wayto start getting the handgun crisisunder control. The pending amendmentcould pre-condemn this attempt to fail-ure.

The Brady bill is meant to establisha minimum standard of handgun pur-chase regulation. Before the 5-daywaiting period and the local back-ground check required is lifted, the in-stant-check system must have accessto at least 80 percent of all State andFederal criminal-case dispositions forthe last 5 years. Even this will not bea complete check. Even a fully oper-ational instant-check system willnever have access to as much informa-tion as is available to local law en-forcement officials, who can reviewcriminal records not yet entered intoany Federal or State database.

The implementation of a reliable in-stant-check system is at least 5 yearsaway. Only 15 States have fully auto-mated criminal record systems. FourStates have no automated criminalrecord system at all. Twenty-nine arebacklogged in the entry of criminalrecords into their systems and twentyhave no method for identifying whichoffenses are felonies.

The Gekas amendment could gut theprovisions in the bill designed to pre-vent the sale of handguns to felons be-fore an effective instant-check systemis in operation resulting in the unin-hibited purchase of handguns by crimi-nals. In other words, make no mistakeabout it: This amendment is a killer. Itcould lead to more gun-inflicteddeaths, and it will certainly kill theBrady bill. No one who is honestly in-terested in controlling escalatinghandgun violence could possibly votefor a Brady bill co'itaining an amend-ment that could leave criminals withunrestricted access to firearms. That iswhat this amendment does. Thisamendment is an attempt to utterlydebase and kill it. I urge all Memberswho are ready to take the first stepstoward a honest national policy ofhandgun violence control to kill thisamendment, and save the Brady bill.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is onthe amendment, as modified, offered bythe gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.GEKAS].

The question was taken; and theChairman announced that the noes ap-peared to have it.

RECORDED VOTEMr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I demand

a recorded vote.A recorded vote was ordered.The vote was taken by electronic de-

vice, and there were-ayes 236, noes 198,not voting 4, as follows:

AllardAndrews (TX)ApplegateArcherArmeyBachus (AL)Baker (CA)Baker (LA)BallengerBarcaBarclaBarlowBarrett (NE)BartlettBartonBevillBlIbrayBillrakisBishopBlileyBluteBoehnerBonillaBoucherBrewsterBrooksBrowderBunningBurtonBuyerCallahanCalvert

[Roll No. 659]AYES-236

CampCanadyCarrChapmanClingerClyburnCobleColemanCollins (GA)CombestConditCooperCostelloCoxCramerCraneCrapoCunninghamDannerDardendo Ia IaraDeFazloDeLayDickeyDingellDoolittleDoranDrelerDuncanDunnEdwards (TX)Emerson

English (OK)EverettEwingFields (TX)FishFranks (CT)FrostGalleglyGekasGerenGillmorGingrichGoodlatteGoodlingGordon0ossGramsGreenGreenwoodGundersonHall (TX)HamiltonHancockHansenHbastertHayesHoleyHefnerHergerHilliardHobsonHoeketra

28572HokeHoldenHornHoughtonHuffingtonHunterHutchinsonHuttoInglisInhofeInaleeIstookJohnson (GA)Johnson (SD)Johnson, SamKanjorskiKasichKimKingKingstonKlinkKnollenbergKolbeKopetkiKylLambertLancasterLaRoccoLaughlinLehmanLevyLewis (CA)Lewis (FL)LightfootLnderLivingstonLloydLongMachtleyManzulloMartinezMcCandlesMcCollumMcCreryMcCurdyMcHughMclnnis

AbercrombieAckermanAndrews (ME)Andrews (NJ)Bacchus (FL)BaeslerBarrett (WI)BatemanBecerraBeilensonBentleyBerouterBermanBlackwellBoehlertBonlorBorskiBrown (CA)Brown (FL)Brown (OH)BryantByrneCantwellCardinCastleClayClaytonClementCollins (IL)Collins (MI)ConyersCoppersmIthCoynedo Lugo (VI)DealDeLauroDerrickDeutschDiaz-BalartDicksDixonDooleyDurbinEdwards (CA)EngelEnglish (AZ)

MloKeonMoNultyMicaMichelMiller (FL)MingoMollohanMontgomeryMoorheadMurphyMurthaMyersNatcherNeal (NC)NussleOberstarObeyOrtizOrtonPackardParkerPaxonPayne (VA)Peterson (MN)PetriPomboPomeroyPortmanPoshardPryce (OH)QuillenRahallRamstad

avenelRegulaRichardsonRidgeRobertsRogersRohrabacherRothRowlandRoyceSandersSantorumSarpaliusSchaefer

NOES-198EshooEvansFaleomavaega

(AS)FarrFawellFauioFields (LA)FilnerFingerhutFlakeFogliettaFord (MI)Ford (TN)FowlerFrank (MA)Franks (NJ)FurseGalloGejdensonGephardtGibbonsOllchrestOltmanGlickmanGonzalezGrandyGutierresHall (OH)HamburgHarmanHastingsHincheyHoaglandHochbruecknerHoyerHughesHydeJacobsJeffersonJohnson (CT)Johnson, E.B.JohnstonKapturKennedyKennelly

SohiffSharpShawShusterSislkySkeenSkeltonSmith (MI)Smith (OR)Smith (TX)SnoweSolomonSpenceSprattStearnsStenholmStricklandStumpStupakSundquistSwettSwiftTalentTannerTauzinTaylor (MS)Taylor (NC)TejedaThomas (WY)ThorntonThurmanTorkildsenTrafncantUnsoeldValentineVolkmerVucanovichWalkerWalshWeldonWhittenWilsonWiseYoung (AK)ZeliffZimmer

KildeeKlezckaKleinKingKreldlerLaFalceLantosLaZIoLeachLevinLewis (GA)LipinskiLoweyMaloneyMannMantonMargolies-

MezvlnskyMarkeyMatsulMazzollMcCloskeyMcDadeMcDermottMcHaleMcKinneyMcMillanMeehanMeekMenendesMeyersMfumeMiller (CA)MinetaMinkMolinariMoranMorellaNadlerNeal (MA)Norton (DC)OlverOwensOxleyPallonePastor

November 10, 1993 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSEPayne (NJ)PeloalPennyPeterson (FL)PickettPicklePorterPrice (NC)QuinnRangelReedReynoldsRoemerRos-LehtinenRoeRot..enkowskiRoukemaRoybal-AllardRushSaboSAngmelster

DellumsMoakley

SawyerSaxtonSchenkSchroederSchumerScottSensenbrannerSerranoShaysShepherdSkaggsSlatterySlaughter

mlt. I (IA)Smith (NJ)StarkStokesStuddsSynarThomas (CA)Thompson

TorlTesTorrlcellTownsTuckerUptonVeli zquezVentoViscloskyWashingtonWatersWattWaxmanWheatWilliamsWolfWoolseyWydenWynnYateseYoung (FL)

NOT VOTINO-4Romero-Barcel6 Underwood (OU)(PR)

0 1434Mr. LAZIO changed his vote from

"aye" to "no."Messrs. PAXON, VALENTINE,

SPRATT, and REGULA, and Mrs.LLOYD changed their vote from "no"to "aye."

So the amendment, as modified, wasagreed to.

The result of the vote was announcedas above recorded.

The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order toconsider amendment No. 3, printed inpart 2 of House Report 103-341.

AMENDMENT AS MODIFIED OFFERED BY MR.Mc COLLUM

Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, Ioffer amendment No. 3 as modified,printed in the report.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will des-ignate the amendment, as modified.

The text of the amendment, as modi-fied, is as follows:

Amendment, as modified, offered by Mr.MCCOLLUM:

In the manner proposed to be added by sec-tion 2(b) of the Committee amendment,-(1) strike the close quotation marks andthe following period; and(2) add at the end the following:

"(6) A Notwithstanding any provision ofthe law of any State or political subdivisionthereof that imposes a waiting period beforethe purchase of a firearm, a licensee maytransfer and a person may receive a firearmimmediately after compliance with para-graph (1).

"(B) Section 927 shall not apply to subpara-graph (A) of this paragraph.".

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to therule, the gentleman from Florida (Mr.MCCOLLUM] will be recognized for 25minutes, and a Member opposed will berecognized for 25 minutes.

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I risein opposition to the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlemanfrom New York [Mr. SCHUMER] will berecognized for 25 minutes.

Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I askunanimous consent to yield one-half ofmy time, or 12 minutes, to the gen-tleman from Texas (Mr. BROOKS] forthe purpose of yielding it to whomeverhe may designate.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objectionto the request of the gentleman fromFlorida?

There was no objection.The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman

from Florida, (Mr. MCCOLLUMJ will berecognized for 12 minutes, the gen-tleman from Texas [Mr. BROOKS] willbe recognized for 12 minutes, and thegentleman from New York (Mr. SCHU-MER] will be recognized for 25 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentlemanfrom Florida (Mr. MCCOLLUM].

Mr. McCOLLUM. As most of the folkshere know, I have not been enamoredwith the idea of a waiting period, formany reasons, primarily that I do notthink it is necessary because you dothe check right now that you can do in5 minutes. You do not need 5 days to doIt. It is, as I said earlier, largely sym-bolic.

However, I have always believed thatwe should do what we can to develop asystem and put it in place that wouldprevent a felon from getting control ofa gun and being able to buy from a gundealer. I have always believed thiscould be improved upon, the recordscould be improved upon, and the so-called instant check system, which wasadopted in one form on a bill here sev-eral years ago that I offered and is inthe Brady bill as a follow-on to thewaiting period that is in this bill, Ihave always believed that thi9 was agood idea and a procedure we shouldfollow.

Consequently, I have been pleased atleast with a portion of this bill dealingwith the waiting period, the portion ofthe bill that says, in essence, thatonce, now under the Gekas amendmentthat was accepted, that a 5-year periodpasses and presumably the efforts aremade and fully implemented to putthis check system in around the coun-try, you will now at that point in time,at the end of that period, be ablethrough all 50 States to do an instantcheck to the best of the records avail-able, to find out if somebody who isgoing in to purchase a gun- is a felon,but for many more things.

In fact, the bill the way it is draftedhere right now, under the bill as it isdrafted before us today, when the in-stant check system is in place, the waythat is going to work is that a dealer,a gun dealer, is going to have to gothrough a system set up by the Federaland State governments to find out ifsomebody is privileged to be able tobuy a gun or whether they are not eli-gible. The system requires that theState entity report back to the gundealer almost instantly, within thatday, to tell him whether or not there isa State law, for example, that says thisperson is not eligible. Maybe he isunder 18 or has not qualified by notgetting a permit or maybe he is simplya felon as we are all most concernedabout in this bill today. But for what-ever reason, if the State law says thatyou cannot get this gun or you are noteligible or the Federal law says that,then and in that case the gun dealer

may not transfer the gun. In any othercase, he can.

My amendment, which I am propos-ing today, would .imply say that oncethat becomes the law, once the instantcheck is in place, once we can do thisright away, through all 50 States, thenwe have no business having any wait-ing periods.

E 1440There is no reason for a waiting pe-

riod, because we can find the answerwhen a person goes to buy the gun justlike that, instantly. That is the ideabehind that provision in the bill.

My amendment would preempt allState laws that would have waiting pe-riods in the face of this.

I would like to make it very, veryclear, contrary to what some of the op-ponents of some of this amendmentwill be telling you and have alreadysaid earlier today, this amendmentwould leave intact all the laws of the 50States that would indeed say thatsomebody is not eligible to get a gun.

For example, after my amendmentpasses, after the instant check provi-sion is in place, if the State has a lawthat says somebody has to have a per-mit to buy a gun, then they are stillgoing to have to have the permit. Ifthey have not bought one, the systemis going to say to the gun dealer, "Youcannot give or sell a gun to this per-son."

The same thing is true like in Illinoisfor an owner to have an I.D. card. Thatlaw will still be valid. My amendmentwould not touch it, or if somebody isotherwise disqualified because they area drug addict or an illegal alien ormentally defective or a spouse abuseror whatever other disability a statelaw says that person has that will notallow them to buy a gun, at the pointin time when they go to buy the gunfrom the gun dealer, after the McCol-lum amendment is passed, after this in-stant check system is in place, theystill will not be able to buy a gun.

So do not be fooled by any rhetoric.State laws in this case are not affected.

What my amendment does is verysimple. It says why should we have awaiting period after we have an instantcheck system in place? There is no rea-son for it. That is the reason for the in-stant check system. Then let us simplydo away with the State waiting peri-ods, and not have them anymore.

The only other argument I haveheard against the amendment is someidea that we are invading Statesrights. Well, I want to tell you that weare invading States rights right now bythis bill itself, by imposing a waitingperiod on those States that do not haveone today.

So what is wrong with going theother step and being symmetricalabout this, and when this is all in placeand finally we have the instant check,let us simply do away with all waiting

28573