Watch the video... Then you’ll see why there is a problem.
From PossumKing over at ARFCOM...
Dear Rep. XXXXX,
What would you do if you discovered that a law passed by Congress and signed by the President included an amendment that had actually been rejected by the House of Representatives? What would you do if the Congressional Record and the enacted law reflected the exact opposite of the archived video of Congressional debate and vote? Would you try to rectify the situation even if it is a law that you may like? As discussed below, there is such a law that includes an amendment that was specifically rejected by the House of Representatives. Although the amendment was flatly rejected, said amendment was still included in the final legislation. I want to know what you plan to do about this injustice.
On April 10, 1986, the House of Representatives voted to pass the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act (FOPA) Pub.L. 99-308, 100 Stat. 449, enacted May 19, 1986, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 921 et seq.
During debate, Rep. William Hughes presented an amendment that is now commonly known as the Hughes Amendment. The House voted down this amendment as seen in this archived video that has been posted to the internet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6Mx2UcSEvQ. Despite the fact that the House rejected this amendment, Rep. Charles Rangel claimed that it passed and included the amendment in the final version of the bill.
Below, I quote from the Congressional Record:
8. H.AMDT.777 to H.R.4332 An amendment to make it unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun except in the case of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date of enactment.
Sponsor: Rep Hughes, William J. [NJ-2] (introduced 4/10/1986) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 4/10/1986 House amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment Passed in Committee of the Whole by Voice Vote. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d099:HR04332:).
As you can see, the Congressional Record, the enacted law, and the archived video do not agree. The Hughes Amendment was rejected. Do you think this is the type of representation that your constituents deserve?
Please contact me at your earliest convenience and inform me what you plan to do to correct this travesty. Your reputation and the reputations of your fellow Congress members are at stake.
Respectfully,
Pissed off constiuent
Oh I agree there is a problem, but the congress was sitting as a committee of the whole, not as congress, so committee rules prevail, and each body has final word on their own rules and enforcement thereof.
The proper place would be lodgign a complaint with the House Rules committee, but since the Dems controlled that as well...