Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 145 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

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

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 145, providing for consideration of H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, and H.R. 1112, the Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019.

The rule provides for consideration of each bill under a structured rule. The rule also provides 1 hour of general debate on each bill equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

The Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019 and the Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019 arrived at a time of emergency for America--a real emergency. Every year 120,000 Americans are shot in our country, and 35,000 of them are shot dead. Seventeen thousand of the people wounded or killed each year are children or teenagers, their families devastated, their lives forever changed.

In 2017, gun deaths in America hit the highest level in 40 years, with 40,000 Americans killed.

We have lost more Americans to gun violence in our own communities than to the Vietnam war, the Revolutionary

War, the Civil War, World War I, World War II, the Korean war, the Iraq war, and the Afghan war, combined. This war at home never stops. Each day--yesterday, today, and tomorrow--another 100 people in America are shot and killed by gun violence.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a global problem; it is an American problem. While 35,000 Americans are killed by gunfire here each year, it is 146 people in the United Kingdom, 142 in Portugal, and 30 in Japan.

We lose more people to gun violence in a single weekend than England loses all year. We lost more people in the Las Vegas massacre alone, in one bloody night, than the nation of Japan lost to gun violence in 8 years.

No other developed, high-income country's lethal gun violence even comes close to the American carnage allowed by our loophole-ridden gun laws. The gun-related murder rate in the United States is 25 times higher than the average of other high-income countries and hundreds of times higher than some of them.

Now, the good news is that we know what to do to begin to end this crisis. We must close the loopholes.

In 1994, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act went into effect and required licensed firearm dealers to contact the FBI to run a background check through NICS, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

The Brady Act made it illegal to sell a firearm to felons, to fugitives, to people who had been committed to mental institutions, to drug addicts, to domestic abusers, to undocumented immigrants, and to other disqualified categories.

The Brady Act worked as far as it went. It stopped more than 3 million illegal purchases of firearms by convicted felons, violently abusive partners, fugitives, the mentally ill, and so on. But there are gaping loopholes in the law because unlicensed gun sellers, the people who sell guns online today or at gun shows or in other private transactions, can sell firearms without having to run any background check whatsoever.

More than one-fifth of U.S. gun owners acquired their most recent firearm without any background check at all, which means that millions of people obtained millions of firearms without going through the Brady system, and people who commit gun crimes overwhelmingly obtain their firearms from the unlicensed sources. A 2013 study found that 80 percent of all firearms acquired for criminal purposes were obtained from sources that were not required to go through the background check.

The criminals are not stupid. They follow the loopholes. They go to the internet. They go to the gun shows. They go to the convenience store parking lots to get their weapons of mass destruction without any background check at all.

Our legislation will close these dangerous loopholes by guaranteeing that there is a thorough NICS background check on every gun sale or transfer, with only a few carefully defined exceptions for intrafamily gifts and a few other cases.

Mr. Speaker, there are three primary things you need to know about this legislation:

First, it is backed by more than 90 percent of the American people-- fully, 97 percent of Americans, including 97 percent of gun owners, 97 percent of Republicans, and 99 percent of Democrats. It is the very essence of common sense, the sense we all have in common, to make the background check system comprehensive and universal, leakproof, foolproof, and not ridden by the loopholes.

A background check doesn't work if criminals know that there are massive and lawful ways to cheat and get around it. So America, today, stands up to close the loopholes, and that is why this is a day of great triumph for the gun safety movement that has swept America in response to Parkland, Las Vegas, Newtown, and the other massacres that our people have endured.

Second, this legislation is perfectly constitutional. As Justice Scalia found for the Supreme Court in the District of Columbia v. Heller decision, the Second Amendment permits reasonable regulation to exclude from gun ownership violent felons, the mentally unstable, and so on.

Despite all of the solemn invocations of the Second Amendment that we continue to hear bouncing off of the walls of Congress, the opponents of this legislation could not muster a single witness to actually argue that this legislation is unconstitutional, and that includes the George Mason University Antonin Scalia School of Law professor of constitutional law and the Second Amendment who was brought in and just expressed her policy misgivings about the bill without articulating any constitutional analysis at all and rejected the opportunity to say that this legislation is unconstitutional.

The reason 97 percent of Americans favor this legislation is because it is perfectly consistent with the letter and spirit of the Second Amendment, and it sweepingly advances public safety at the same time.

Third, this bill will dramatically lower gun violence in America. More than 90 percent of Brady background checks take less than 90 seconds to complete. But these checks have literally stopped more than 3 million illegal gun purchases by felons, fugitives, domestic offenders, the violently mentally ill, undocumented aliens, and so on. Every day, background checks stop 170 felons and 50 domestic abusers from purchasing a gun. Imagine how much more effective this system will be when we close these gaping loopholes.

Yet, even in the face of the shocking death toll which distinguishes our society from the other wealthy societies on Earth, despite the overwhelming public support for this legislation, and despite its clear constitutionality, our friends across the aisle oppose closing the internet, the gun show, and the private sale loopholes.

Instead of getting on our side to close the loopholes, what do they give us? More loopholes. They brought us dozens of amendments to try to suggest more loopholes to the current law.

That is obviously not the direction that America needs to go in, and you will hear some more about that today, Mr. Speaker. They have given us a veritable loophole factory. But now is the time to close loopholes, not reproduce them.

Let's focus on the public safety, which is the cardinal purpose of law in the social contract in a democratic society. Let's pass this excellent bill, and let's pass H.R. 1112, the Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019, which closes the Charleston loophole, the loophole that made it possible for a guy to go out and get a gun because the dealer decided to give him a gun after 3 days because they were still doing a background check.

This loophole says that if it has taken 3 days or more, you have a right to go ahead and get your gun. We are going to close that one, the so-called default proceed provision. We are going to close that one, too, so that we don't see any repeat massacres like the one that took place in June of 2015 at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a statement by the National Task Force to End Sexual & Domestic Violence, which is in favor of this legislation and against any weakening amendments.

National Task Force To End Sexual & Domestic Violence

The National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic

Violence, a coalition comprising federal, state, local and

tribal organizations and individuals who have fought for

federal protections for survivors of domestic violence,

dating violence, sexual assault and stalking, oppose any

amendments to H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of

2019, that exempts any persons from the firearms background

check requirement. This includes amendments exempting victims

and survivors of domestic violence or sexual assault,

including those with protective orders.

Firearms pose a significant danger to victims of domestic

violence, and this is true no matter who owns the firearm.

Research shows that a male abuser's access to a firearm

increases the risk of intimate partner femicide fivefold and

does not support the contention that firearm possession is a

protective factor for the victim. The testimony of Christy

Salters Martin, a professional boxer and experienced gun

user, to the Senate Judiciary Committee illustrates this.

Despite her boxing prowess and familiarity with firearms, her

abuser was able to take her gun from her and shoot her with

it, narrowly missing her heart. Firearms do not make victims

of domestic violence safer; firearms put victims at greater

risk.

Furthermore, domestic abusers are adept at using the

justice system against victims. Abusers often accuse the

victim of being the perpetrator of violence, making police

reports and seeking protective orders. Abusers are also adept

at finding loopholes. If persons with protective orders are

exempted from the background check requirement, many abusers

who are prohibited from possessing firearms would seek

protective orders in order to circumvent the background check

requirement to obtain firearms to terrorize their victims.

Moreover, requiring a victim to undergo a firearms

background check is not a hurdle to obtaining a firearm. Most

firearm background checks are completed in under a minute. A

victim seeking to purchase a firearm would still be able to

do so quickly, unless the victim was legally prohibited from

possessing firearms.

Rather than adding dangerous exemptions to a law that is

supposed to protect victims and survivors of domestic

violence, Congress should focus on ensuring that adjudicated

domestic abusers do not possess firearms. This includes

ensuring federal firearms prohibitors protect all victims of

intimate partner violence, including dating partners, and

ensuring that domestic abusers who are prohibited from

possessing firearms relinquish their firearms. The best way

to protect victims is to disarm abusers.

Just to quote a small part of it: ``Firearms pose a significant danger to victims of domestic violence, and this is true no matter who owns the firearm. Research shows that a male abuser's access to a firearm increases the risk of intimate partner femicide fivefold and does not support the contention that firearm possession is a protective factor for the victim.''

And there is more in here of interest.

I would like to thank my distinguished colleague from Arizona for her thoughts on the question of sexual and domestic violence.

We, indeed, have a provision within the legislation which allows for an exemption from the background check requirement in cases of an imminent threat of great bodily harm.

The question has been raised: Does that include sexual assault, dating partner violence, stalking, and so on? We thought it was self- evident that it did, but, in any event, Representatives Horn from Oklahoma and Murphy from Florida are introducing a clarifying amendment to be very specific that it is included.

At that point, perhaps we could welcome the support of the distinguished gentlewoman from Arizona, because we are being very clear at that point that our exception for imminent bodily harm and violence includes sexual assault and so on.

I am certain that the gentlewoman's intentions are good, just as are the intentions of the offerers of the amendment in the bill.

Let me just address, in case the gentlewoman hasn't decided to come over to our side now, some of the general points that were made against the legislation.

The gentlewoman articulated an argument we have been hearing a lot of from our counterparts, which is that criminals don't follow the law and, therefore, there is no reason to get rid of the loopholes and strengthen the law, because criminals won't follow the law.

Now, the fallacy of that argument is plain to see. It is an argument against all law.

It is an argument against the law against murder because murderers obviously don't follow the law against murder.

It is an argument against the law opposed to theft because thieves don't follow the law against theft.

But I think anyone who takes time to really study what law is understands that the purpose of the law is to deter people from negative, socially harmful action, the way that the Brady Act has deterred more than 3 million people--felons, fugitives, the mentally unstable, and other unauthorized categories--from accessing a weapon.

Now, that argument sweeps so broadly that it is an argument against having the Brady Act that we have now, and perhaps that is the intention, simply to take down the law that we have got now.

Another purpose of law, of course, is to punish people who violate it and then, again, to send a moral message about what the social norms are.

And we have got social norms about driving, for example. Would we say we are not going to have driver's licenses in America because people who drive without a driver's license ignore the law requiring you to have a driver's license?

It is a completely nonsensical argument.

Let's come back to reality and talk about what the Brady Act actually requires the gun dealers to ask people.

Here are the basic questions that are being asked:

Are you under indictment for or have you ever been convicted of a felony?

Are you a fugitive from justice?

Are you an unlawful user of a controlled substance?

Do you suffer from mental illness?

Have you been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces?

Are you subject to a court order restraining you from harassing, stalking, or threatening your child or an intimate partner?

Have you ever been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence?

Have you renounced your United States citizenship?

Are you unlawfully present in the United States?

Mr. Speaker, those questions have created a dragnet that has allowed us to stop more than 3 million people from getting weapons who shouldn't have them.

But there are these big, gaping loopholes out there that they can go on the Internet and get one, or they can go to the parking lot of a convenience store in a private sale and get one, or they can go to a gun show and negotiate a private sale and get one without having to answer those questions.

Well, the American people have spoken on this. That is really why this is the first legislation advocating gun safety to hit the floor of the House of Representatives in a quarter of a century.

This is a great day for the gun safety movement that has overtaken America, rejecting the unconscionable toll of 100 people dead every single day in communities across the land.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), the sponsor of the underlying bill, H.R. 8, who has done such a magnificent job advocating this cause through thick and thin.

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

I suppose that we are in a rush to do anything, something, anything that works in order to curb the terrible toll of gun violence on our society.

In the last Congress it is true there was other legislation that was brought to us. One was a proposal to legalize silencers in America, which sounds to me more like an agenda of organized crime than it is of the U.S. Congress trying to seek public safety.

But there was this bipartisan Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, which was a massive assault on federalism and States' rights. It would have destroyed every State's concealed carry law in the country to a level at the lowest common denominator. So if you could get a license to carry a concealed loaded weapon in one State--and in some States there are more than a million people who have been able to get them through completely permissive and lax laws--then you could go anywhere in the country. That is their proposal. That is what is coming out of the loophole factory.

I just would like to assure my friend that we have a provision in our legislation, if you read it carefully, which says that you can temporarily transfer a gun at a shooting range, at a shooting gallery, or for purposes of hunting, so he doesn't have to worry about this.

Our friends are either not reading carefully enough or they are overlooking very clear passages in our legislation which deal with commonsense concerns.

This is bipartisan legislation. It is backed by more than 90 percent of the American people, and it is going to advance common safety. So rather than searching for mysterious reasons to oppose it, why shouldn't everybody get together to say this is something that will promote the public safety?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

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

I want to thank my colleague for advancing our discussion here because I think now we are really starting to get somewhere.

The gentlewoman suggested an amendment which allows for the transfer of a firearm to a victim of domestic violence or sexual assault who has an order of protection issued by a court. That is an extremely narrow exception.

Most women who are enduring domestic violence don't have a civil protection order. Part of that is because of the incompetence of the laws in a lot of States, and part of it is because they haven't had the wherewithal to go and get one.

But our legislation and our amendment sweeps much more broadly. It allows any woman who is a victim of domestic violence, who faces a threat from their attacker, to be loaned a gun by a family member or be loaned a gun by a friend until the threat is resolved.

My friend suggests that there is something ambiguous about the words. I just don't see the ambiguity. Their original argument attacked the utility of all criminal law, saying we shouldn't have criminal laws, essentially, because criminals won't follow them.

This seems like an attack on law itself. Law depends upon language. But the language is clear here that if there is a threat and if you are suffering from the threat of domestic violence, sexual assault and so on, then you can get the gun.

Who interprets it? Well, you have got the right to go out and get it. If someone were to prosecute you for doing that, the prosecution would clearly lose.

So I am afraid that our friends are looking for problems in this bipartisan legislation which simply don't exist.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I might consume.

Mr. Speaker, first, to clarify one thing, this is bipartisan legislation. We have at least five Republicans who are cosponsoring and supporting this legislation. I assume my friend doesn't mean to read those five Republican Members of the House of Representatives out of her caucus.

I am not quite sure what happened in Maine, but I know that there are around a dozen States and the District of Columbia that have already gotten rid of the loopholes that we are going to get rid of today in this Federal legislation.

My friend also invokes Second Amendment rights. I thought that we had put that red herring to rest in 2008 in Heller v. District of Columbia. Justice Scalia said that reasonable regulation to screen out felons and fugitives and the mentally unstable is perfectly consistent with the Second Amendment.

Everybody on both sides of the aisle favors the Second Amendment, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. If you are going to oppose this legislation, you have to base it on some public safety rationale and not pretend like anybody has made a constitutional argument, because nobody has made a constitutional argument.

Finally, on the question of the domestic violence amendment, I would invite my friend to come on over, and we would gladly have unanimous consent to have her added to the amendment, which is the broader amendment she is talking about. Of course, her amendment was the narrow one, which required you to have a civil protection order before there would be an exception from the provisions of the legislation.

She said she was misdirected by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. All I can say is the legislative process is a treacherous place and a rocky road for people in the minority. I have been dealing with that for several years. In any event, we would love to have you join the amendment now. Mr. Speaker, I make that offer to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), who is the great and distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman.

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

Mr. Speaker, far from trying to turn law-abiding citizens into criminals, our legislation will save law-abiding citizens from criminals, simply by expanding the successful Brady law, which has been in effect for decades now.

The gentlewoman introduces a constitutional argument at the last minute here, saying that our legislation is unconstitutional because there may be undue fees imposed. Of course, those are the fees that are currently imposed under the Brady law, so I am afraid that my friend has just made an argument for the unconstitutionality of the current law, which has saved us from more than 3 million felons, fugitives, mentally unstable people, drug abusers, and undocumented aliens from acquiring firearms in the country.

Mr. Speaker, our country is a social contract. I know we have got a lot of young people here today. We are a social contract. If you go back and read any of the social contracts--there is Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, or Thomas Jefferson--any of them say, we leave a state of nature, which is a state of war and a state of violence, in order to live in a civilized way.

But how civilized is it when tens of thousands of Americans, every year, are being killed in firearm violence? Every day, another hundred Americans are killed with guns.

In 2017, the highest level in 40 years, nearly 40,000 Americans died from gun violence. That is not a civilized state. That is a state of war. That is a state of violence.

We know what the loopholes are, and we are going to close the loopholes with our bipartisan legislation, which has support from Republicans and it has support from Democrats. The public opinion polls show that more than 95 percent of the American people support what we are trying to do here--close the gun show loophole, close the private sale loophole, close the internet loophole--make sure that everybody who purchases a gun in America is purchasing it only with the universal comprehensive mental and criminal background check.

We have amendments for the discrete exceptions that are necessary, including in cases of imminent violence, including rape and sexual assault via domestic violence. We think that this legislation is excellent legislation that every Member of Congress should feel proud voting for.

Mr. Speaker, I submit both H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Check Act, as well as the bill to close the Charleston loophole, so that criminals are not given guns after 3 days. We are able to delay that process in the event that more investigation is needed.

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

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

Today I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 8, the so-called Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019. This is bad legislation that fails to make anyone safer in any regard.

I have been listening here, sitting on the floor for just the last few minutes and listening to those who came up and were happy about this bill coming forward today, and they mentioned many acts of mass violence and situations that have happened. The sad part about it is they claim this is the answer and the first step. In actuality, it is, at best, a side step, and it may actually be a step backwards and will not do what it is being claimed to do.

All this legislation will do is burden law-abiding citizens wishing to exercise their Second Amendment rights, including defending themselves from the gun-toting criminals this bill does nothing to combat.

H.R. 8 foolishly presumes criminals who flout existing laws will suddenly submit themselves to background checks.

Are Members who support this bill delusional enough to think a criminal trading cocaine to another criminal for a firearm will give consideration to H.R. 8 and go to the nearest gun store to submit to a background check? That is absurd.

Most of us will agree that criminals are not going to do that anyway. My concern is what it actually does in practice to those who are not criminals.

Not only is it foolish to think they will start following the law, it is also foolish to think it is going to in any way make our country safer.

My Democratic friends have exploited every mass shooting, calling for universal background checks, but H.R. 8 would not have stopped a single mass shooting.

These strategies do, however, share one thing in common. Over and over, we see issues of mental health and missed opportunities for authorities to intercede.

Let me just say, Mr. Chair, I share the concern. I am going to share, in just a moment, actual, real things that actually could make a difference in helping to stem the tide of mass violence in our country. But doing this, we have to understand that this bill does not do that, and what may make you feel good may not heal you. That has to be understood.

Look at the recent workplace shooting in Illinois, where the gunman murdered five people. That could have been prevented, but not by H.R. 8. All law enforcement had to do was enforce existing law. The gunman was prohibited from possessing firearms.

In January 2014, he was issued an Illinois firearm owner's identification card. That March, he applied to buy a handgun from a gun dealer. Five days later, he took possession of the gun, having inexplicably passed a background check. That month, he applied for a concealed carry permit. During a background check for the permit, his felony conviction was flagged.

Illinois police revoked his firearm card and sent him a letter telling him to relinquish the firearm. Not surprisingly, the felon did not comply. Had authorities seized the firearm between March 2014 and February 2019, they could have saved five lives.

Aurora, Illinois, is not the only missed opportunity to prevent tragedy. We know about missed opportunities in Parkland; Aurora, Colorado; Sutherland Springs; Virginia Tech; and others.

The common problem here, Mr. Chair, is clear. It is not a lack of background checks.

With H.R. 8, Democrats refuse to acknowledge the human factors leading to these events, but Republicans have a bill to help law enforcement coordinate responses to mental health concerns and other mass violent threat information.

You know what else H.R. 8 doesn't address? The primary ways criminals acquire firearms. Last month, DOJ revealed nearly half of criminals obtained firearms via theft or the black market. The survey also revealed that a mere 0.8 percent of criminals purchased their firearms at gun shows.

If this bill won't prevent mass shootings and address violent crime, what will it do? It will keep law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves. Under this bill, Mr. Chair, a battered woman with a protection order against her abuser who borrows a firearm for self- defense would be a criminal. It would criminalize the selling of a firearm without a background check to someone with a valid permit allowing them to possess, acquire, or carry a firearm. If that person walked into a gun store, they could present that permit and not undergo a NICS check.

On the other hand, there are solutions to prevent mass violence and gun crime. The Mass Violence Prevention Act, which I introduced earlier this week, is one. The MVP Act directly addresses challenges in law enforcement coordination and response. It would reduce the flow of firearms into the black market, and it would bolster law enforcement's ability to prosecute criminals for firearm offenses.

If reducing gun violence, Mr. Chair, is the Democrats' concern, the MVP Act is legislation that we should be considering today, not H.R. 8. Talk to me or my staff about cosponsoring this evidence-based, commonsense legislation. Unlike H.R. 8, the MVP Act could have prevented tragedies such as Parkland.

Unfortunately, Mr. Chair, my Democratic colleagues, by putting this forward and continuing the same narrative, are not actually interested in stopping gun violence. I take the intent to be good; I do not question the motive. All of us in our life do not want to see the tragedies unfold. But this is not the way forward.

This is another thing put out to the very ones who have suffered, telling them we are helping them, while at the same time not telling them the truth about the bill, a bill that guts its own ability to enforce itself, a bill that actually, possibly, would keep people from purchasing firearms because of an unlimited price of a background check.

The question that I have about this bill, Mr. Chair, is not what actually could happen with this. It is what actually will be hurt by this as we move forward.

With that, I believe that we are being misled. The victims of mass violence are being misled by this bill, H.R. 8, because it would not stop what they have been promised that it would stop.

Mr. Chair, for that, I am profoundly sorry. But because of that, I call on my colleagues to reject H.R. 8 and to support real solutions.

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

Mr. Chair, unfortunately, this bill does not narrow--in fact, it continues the process of those who are going to receive guns. Much of the daily toll that we see is actually coming from those who are already violating laws currently on the books. It is time we actually enforce those as well.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. Chair, I remind the Chair that we did pass Fix NICS last year. We did take into account--those things have been done. We just simply are not moving a bill that we don't feel works, and we actually have offered an alternative.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Steube).

Mr. Chair, I agree. I believe facts are important, and I believe the strength to tell that. I believe the chairman just redid that. He exactly explained why this bill will not operate because of the very fact that, inside the bill itself, it does not have a registry, which I will remind the Chair that the Department of Justice under President Obama said a universal background check bill will not work without a registry and is on the websites of many advocates for this bill. That is just one of the areas that we look at as we go forward in realizing that this has already gutted itself when we look at the bill.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cline).

Mr. Chair, may I request the time for both sides, please.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).

Mr. Chair, before I yield to the gentlelady, it has been quoted here, especially, 90 to 95 percent of the people want universal background checks. And everything has statistics, a poll, but when actually put to the voters of Maine, the voters of Maine actually rejected it, and I understand where they are coming from on that.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne).

Mr. Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, again, I agree with the sentiment that we need to actually fashion something that will work. Unfortunately, this, for many reasons we have already stated, will not.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the words of the majority leader. However, I will say that in the previous Congress, this Congress did pass Fix NICS. It also passed the STOP School Violence Act. I am sure, among other reasons, it is probably why the majority leader voted against those bills in which they were included.

I do agree with him. The moments of silence may not have stopped, but it did call upon a higher power to realize that we are fragile human beings involved in tragedies. I will also remind the folks, and Mr. Chairman, yourself, that this bill will also not do what it has many times been promoted for it to do, because any of these mass violence episodes would not have been affected by this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from Louisiana an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I request of the chairman: Does he have any more speakers at this time?

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

Announcement by the Chair

Mr. Chairman, is this now the final speaker?

Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close as well.

Mr. Chair, before I close, I would like to say that I agree with the statement from the gentleman just now that there are maybe the ones turned away every day. The problem is there are only 60 a year prosecuted for what is a crime. This doesn't address that.

Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Budd), a licensed firearms dealer.

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

Mr. Chairman, I won't take even the 30 seconds. I just support the amendment. I think it is good. Many of the flaws that we have seen in this bill so far, this is an amendment that actually works.

Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the willingness of the amendment, I think, but I rise in that, again, this is something discussed at committee. It was an attempt to--it is basically a failed attempt to fix one of the shortcomings of this legislation.

I understand why they would bring it. I understand why they would want to fix it, because its existence indicates what we have been saying about the flaws in the bill, which we discussed at committee.

Like other floor amendments that are going to be offered, this is nothing more than trying to basically change the appearance of what is a flawed perception. The problem here is it addresses the undefined term of ``imminent'' used in the bill.

Mr. Chairman, it is well known, and I have spoken about it many times, that I am still currently serving as a United States Air Force chaplain. I have pastored for many years, and I have been on the other end of phone calls from those who were struggling and thinking of taking their life.

Suicide is not something that we can define very easily. It is not something that we can simply limit to: Yes, guns are effective. But any method that someone uses to choose to end their life is sad and a struggle for those of us who have dealt with this.

The term ``imminent'' here is problematic for those of us who have dealt with those who are struggling with suicide because imminent to them and imminent to a judge and imminent to someone who wants to take his life, and to law enforcement, indicates something precipitous that will happen in a very short amount of time, a very imminent act, something that is maybe going to happen, Mr. Chairman, even before I finish my speech. That is an imminent kind of act.

Imminent does not extend to 12 hours or 24 hours or even 46 hours. That would not fall under the definition of ``imminent.'' And I am not willing to let a prosecutor or a judge who may not like guns, who would actually say that was an imminent threat, and by transferring it for more than a short amount of time, you have then fallen under and fall under this.

Now, I would hope that would never happen, Mr. Chairman. But we have to be serious about this issue of imminence. For those of us who have dealt with this, there may be, and I have had times when people would come to me and they were thinking about harming themselves, but the imminence factor was not there. They were just trying to see if they could clear their head. It may be a week that would pass, and they came back and would say it was fine.

But in this issue, I understand the intent and the heart here, but it is a very weak attempt to fix problems that we had already pointed out in this bill. And it will still not fix the problem, because the problem is the imminent standard. That is the part that we are struggling with.

We can disagree about this, and I will respect the gentlewoman if she disagrees, and would expect her to. But let's remember, this is carried out, if, say--which I would hope would not happen--this bill actually becomes law. It then will present a problem for those who have to enforce it and those judges who would have to interpret it.

We have to remember that our actions here, we vote on words on paper, not aspirational ideas. Those are happy thoughts, not words on paper. The only thing that the courts can do is vote on words on paper.

I appreciate the gentlewoman bringing this. I support the intent, especially dealing with suicide, which many of us have worked on, and the tragedy that it leaves in the wake of so many. But please understand my opposition to this is it is still a flawed product because we have not dealt with the very issue of imminence in this legislation and this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, again, I understand the need or want to do this is to make many things that actually came in discussions in our committee about some of the problems that we found here, and the mere submission is another tacit admission that the Democrats understand the flaws in this bill.

Mr. Chairman, it is not something that I am going to relitigate here, but also, when debate is cut short, this is what happens when you get to the floor. When debate is cut short in committee, this is what happens.

They realize that good products were brought up, but yet they chose to push through a bill because they had a timeline.

We went through this in the Rules Committee. I get it. This is what is coming up. But, again, to put this in, ``great bodily harm,'' it is minimally helpful at this point. It goes back to the problem we had with ``imminent'' in the last one.

These are all things, frankly, that could have been--even in a bill that I would disagree with at the end of the day on this--this is, again, not something that is going to fix it. A victim of domestic abuse can live in constant fear of her abuser and feel threatened at all times.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I understand at least the attempt to fix something, because they understand that there were problems and they don't want to make it worse, but I have advocated all along that what this does help, it also hurts. And this is, again, just another attempt to do that.

I appreciate that they are figuring out the problems now; I just would oppose this amendment, because, again, it does not completely fix the problems that we have seen, and would not in the bigger picture.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Mr. Chairman, again, I am not opposing this amendment, but like the previous amendment, again, it is proof that this bill is still not ready for prime time and should have spent more time instead of moving a very ill-timed previous question because of a timing deadline that they had to get to the floor. It fixes one of the many flaws in the bill.

Again, Republicans had solutions to these loose ends all over the bill, but our debate time was stopped. But I do have just a question here. Although I am not opposing this amendment, it merely adds the exchange between stepparent and their stepchildren.

What about stepsiblings who also love each other dearly? But this doesn't include that. Stepgrandparents and stepgrandchildren? What about foster families or adoptive families?

It is a simple fix that, again, goes forward and, again, struggles.

But I do want to go back and address something, Mr. Chairman, that came up earlier, and it seemed to get an interesting response from my friends across the aisle, my colleague stated that the appropriate fine is $1,000, not $100,000. They cite the U.S. sentencing guidelines for this number, but I do have to remind the chairman that since the Booker decision, of course, the guidelines are only advisory. And we need not look to the advisory guidelines, but look at the statute the bill amends.

Remember, we do not vote on aspirations in this Chamber; we vote on words on paper.

18 USC 924(a)(5) contains the penalty for violating part ``(s) or (t) of section 922 shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both.''

18 USC 3571(b)(5) ``for a Class A misdemeanor'', which this is, ``that does not result in death, not more than $100,000.''

So it could be $1,000 or it could be up to $100,000.

I appreciate our confusion over this issue, but unfortunately, as I stated before, this is what happens when a bill is rushed to the floor, and it is why we oppose this legislation.

When we understand this, Mr. Chairman, again, you can offer amendments that make Members feel good, but feeling good doesn't heal you and feeling good will not make this better.

I will not oppose this amendment, but, again, I think in just the moments that I have had here, I raised enough questions about this amendment to

take up those very issues that were spoken of about the love between stepparents and stepchildren. What about the stepsiblings? What about the stepgrandparents? That is still part of that device and not addressed in this.

And, again, going back to the issue of the fine: again, the statute and the bill itself are pretty clear; it is fined under this process and not the guidelines that are sentencing.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, again, I appreciate the gentleman bringing it, but as was said, this is an attempt to make a bill that should have been vetted more in committee not be vetted more. And I appreciate that.

I am not going to oppose the amendment, but when I take it a step further, what about the stepparents and the stepsiblings between each other, and the stepgrandparents and stepgrandchildren? I have had a wonderful look at those families. Those are precious families. Why are we just stopping at one?

Again, it goes back to the heart. And I understand the rush to get here, but, again, what makes you feel better and makes you feel good does not always heal you. This is something that needs to be addressed.

Mr. Chair, with this, I am not going to oppose this amendment. It is unfortunately very lacking in a bill that is lacking on many points, but with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am.

Madam Speaker, this motion to recommit will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.

As was just read, the motion to recommit will notify U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, commonly known as ICE, when an illegal alien who is prohibited from possessing a firearm attempts to purchase a firearm by going through the process of application.

Madam Speaker, I have been here all afternoon, and we have heard time and time again how we have had the problem of mass violence. We have talked about how to solve it, and, unfortunately, this underlying bill, as I have brought out many times already, will not do this. We have heard that we have to do something basically even if it won't work.

Madam Speaker, I will remind this House one more time that what makes you feel good does not always heal you. When we understand that, then we can begin to move forward.

What we have found this day is that this bill has many problems because we chose to rush it to the floor because we had a deadline, and we cut off debate in committee.

We found amendments offered to fix parts of this bill that do not fix them but actually make them worse.

We have found out that the authors of the bill did not even know how much was going to be fined in the bill until we actually pointed it out.

Now we come to the biggest part: I have been here all day listening to: We have to keep criminals from having firearms. We have to keep criminals from having firearms.

I will say it once more, Madam Speaker: We must keep criminals from having firearms.

I am glad to let you know, Madam Speaker, we are now giving everyone in this body a chance to do just that.

A similar measure was promoted. What we are simply saying is that, if you have someone who is a criminal who came into our country illegally--criminal time number one--if they then try to buy or purchase a firearm which they are unable to do, that is the second strike as a criminal, and what we are simply saying is, if they do that, they will be reported to ICE.

Now, which Members in this body are opposed to notifying law enforcement when a person prohibited from purchasing a firearm attempts to do so? Are we against that? No.

I believe my friends across the aisle are not. I have heard it all day: We don't want criminals to have firearms.

But my question to you now, Madam Speaker, is--be very careful. If you vote ``no'' on this motion to recommit, you cannot go back to your constituency, no matter what is said, and say: I voted to keep illegal aliens, those who should not have a firearm, from having a firearm.

We have heard it all day. And you can moan, you can talk, you can think about it, but, again, Madam Speaker, I understand the sympathy and the concern and the pain upon this bill, but let's not kid ourselves. The bill itself guts itself when it will not even allow a registry which the Obama administration said it had.

Let's actually get back to a point in saying, if there is something about this bill, give everybody an opportunity to actually keep a gun out of a criminal's hands and actually have that criminal punished for that by turning them in.

But, Madam Speaker and my colleagues, please listen to me right now. Hear me clearly. Hear me clearly. No matter what will be said in just a moment, no matter what the chairman or anyone else will say about this bill, if you vote ``no,'' you are voting to allow someone who should not have a firearm to get away with it and not be prosecuted for it.

Be very clear, Madam Speaker. You can try and make it look better. You can try and say: ``Well, it was not part of the bill. I have got to have the bill''; but never get away from the fact, Madam Speaker, if you vote ``no'' on this motion to recommit, you are making a choice to say: ``I guess some criminals can get away with trying to get a firearm.''

That is why this motion to recommit needs a ``yes'' vote. This is why we on this side stand for making sure that proper firearm safety is upheld while our rights are being upheld and, at the same time, looking to find real solutions, not perpetrating a fraud on those who are scared simply to pass a piece of legislation.

Madam Speaker, vote ``yes'' on the motion to recommit and actually keep guns out of criminals' hands.

Madam Speaker, I yield back balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank Mr. Raskin for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, all of us, Republicans and Democrats, want to reduce gun violence. I think there is just a difference of opinion on how we get there.

Unfortunately, H.R. 8 and H.R. 1112, although well-intentioned, will not reduce gun violence as Mr. Raskin said, and instead it will turn everyday, law-abiding individuals into criminals and could actually do more harm than good.

I grew up in a family that didn't have guns. After my dad returned from World War II, he stopped hunting. So, because I wasn't around them, I have to admit I had an irrational fear of guns for awhile. It wasn't until I became an adult that I got educated.

I remember I first went to a debate where the person who was talking for gun rights said: Do you know who follows the laws? Law-abiding people follow the laws. Who doesn't follow the laws? Criminals do not follow the laws.

So although well-intentioned, often laws are unenforceable, and criminals just do not follow them.

H.R. 8, again, I believe is well-intentioned. But it will not solve the problem. H.R. 8 would not have prevented any of the mass shootings in the last 20 years, not one of them.

I studied them because I am on the Judiciary Committee along with Mr. Raskin, and we heard this bill in that committee. In most cases, guns were obtained legally. Recent attackers have passed background checks to acquire their firearms, including the attackers at the Thousand Oaks, California, shooting; the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania shooting; the attacker in the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, Parkland, Florida, shooting; the shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida; and the Las Vegas, Nevada, shooting. None of these attacks would have been prevented if H.R. 8 or H.R. 1112 were law.

Then, the attackers in the Columbine High School Colorado shooting used straw purchasers for their weapons, an act that is already illegal and has been illegal since at least the 1960s.

Adam Lanza, the attacker in the Sandy Hook Elementary School, Newtown, Connecticut, shooting used his mother's firearms which were legally purchased by his mother. So as you can see--and I have each one of them listed how the attackers got their guns--H.R. 8 and H.R. 1112 would not have prevented any of these shootings.

Not only would none of the mass shootings be prevented by H.R. 8 and H.R. 1112, but the Department of Justice under President Obama said that in order for universal background checks to actually work and be enforceable, a Federal gun registry is needed. Yet this legislation in H.R. 8 specifically prohibits a registry; thus, again, it is unenforceable.

The fact is criminals don't get their guns legally and will not go through a background check to get their guns even if this bill were signed into law.

A recent Department of Justice report of prison inmates that used guns in their crimes showed that 56 percent obtained their guns illegally and another 25 percent received them from family members-- which, by the way, family members are still allowed to get the guns under this law.

It is obvious, then, that they did not get their guns from a gun show or private sales, as Mr. Raskin is concerned about.

H.R. 8 will also turn everyday, law-abiding citizens into criminals if it becomes law.

Let's look at the amendments that were rejected by the Democrats in the Rules Committee and in the Committee on the Judiciary that offered to protect law-abiding citizens from becoming criminals.

First, there was an amendment--I thought commonsense--that someone thinking of committing suicide would be exempted from temporarily turning over their gun to a friend, and it is not allowed under this bill. They would become a criminal.

So, somebody who wants to commit suicide could not transfer their gun to someone else.

If a law-abiding citizen wanted to let someone temporarily use their gun on their own property, they would become a criminal under this bill.

If a farmer or rancher wanted to temporarily lend a gun to a ranch hand for the purposes of ranch activities, the farmer would become a criminal under this law.

If a domestic violence victim was in fear for her life and wanted to temporarily borrow a gun from a friend to protect herself, she would become a criminal under this law.

Let's also look at some commonsense amendments rejected by the Democrats that would have prevented undue burdens and duplication on law-abiding citizens who have already passed a background check but now have to go through another background check under this law.

People who have security clearances. This is the application to get a government security clearance, page upon page, background check, extensive background check. Yet, someone who has this and has gone through this still has to get another background check.

People who have a concealed carry weapon issued by a State, they have to go through another background check.

People who have already gotten a gun permit from States which require them; they have to go through another background check.

People who have global entry, who have gone through a background check, they have got to do it again under this bill.

Even law enforcement officers. Law enforcement officers have to go through another background check under this bill.

This is placing undue burden on law-abiding citizens.

Now I want to share testimony from a young woman from the Judiciary Committee. This woman was a victim of rape on her college campus. And the reason I am bringing it up is because well-meaning gun control laws actually prevented her from carrying a gun to school because the State she traveled through did not allow her to carry a gun in order to defend herself.

This is a clear example of how law-abiding citizens--not criminals, law-abiding citizens--who follow the law and how this young woman and others like her were actually harmed by well-intentioned gun control laws.

As a survivor of domestic violence, I know all too well how hard it can be to protect oneself or find a lifeline out. My abuser often controlled all my finances. I wouldn't have been able to pay for a background check or a gun.

Sometimes getting a gun from a friend could actually be your only option; yet, unfortunately, under this bill, I tried to offer an amendment, but it was rejected.

Now let's turn to H.R. 1112, which changes the length of time that a background check has to be completed from the current 3 days to 10 business days and then another 10 business days for an appeal. So it could be 20-plus days.

The reason I am bringing this up is I want to tell you a story--a real story--about Carol Bowne. She was a New Jersey woman who was stabbed to death while waiting to be approved for her firearm application.

She already had an order of protection through the courts, but that wasn't enough. She needed more than just that piece of paper.

H.R. 1112 will make the realities of Carol's story happen across the country, putting millions of women and law-abiding citizens in danger. Women who seek avenues of protection will be forced to wait almost a month--20 days to a month--like Carol. How many women will potentially suffer like Carol?

H.R. 8 also has other problems.

Unfortunately, the debate in the Judiciary Committee was cut short. Many commonsense amendments were not even heard. Only 10 amendments out of 100 were heard before the chairman cut off debate.

Because of the rush to get this bill through, there is another problem. There is vague language that is not defined and, thus, is open to interpretation.

I know, in some of the amendments, the majority party has tried to give an alternative to my good, commonsense domestic violence amendments, but it doesn't do any good. And this is the reason; it is because the language is so vague.

It says: Under H.R. 8, a person is allowed to temporarily transfer a firearm if it is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.

The question is: There is no definition of this, so how long is a temporary transfer? Who determines that? Does the victim determine it?

Who determines if there is imminent death? Does it qualify if a victim of domestic violence thinks they will be killed? Or does the person transferring the gun have to be in the same room and there be some kind of shootout and they throw a gun to them?

What do ``imminent danger'' and ``imminent death'' mean?

With something as important as the Second Amendment, I think we owe it to the American people to do our work and take as long as we have to in order to have a fair and open debate on major pieces of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson), my good friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a couple of things that were said previously.

I had sponsored an amendment, as a survivor of domestic violence, to allow victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse who have orders of protection to be able to get transferred a gun if they might be in fear for their life.

As I have said, often victims of domestic violence don't have the financial means or they are so restricted by their perpetrator that it is difficult for them to go out and purchase a gun, let alone get a background check, and so they might have a friend whom they can borrow it from.

Now, in response, I think, Mr. Raskin, if I am not mistaken, said that the Democrats did help domestic violence victims. I just don't think that their amendment cuts it, and I am going to read the amendment if this is the one that the gentleman is talking about.

It says: A temporary transfer that is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm, if the possession by the transferee lasts only as long as immediately necessary to prevent the

imminent death or great bodily harm--and then here is the amendment-- including the harm of domestic violence, dating partner violence, sexual assault, stalking, and domestic abuse.

I would say just because you add the words ``domestic violence,'' ``victims of domestic abuse'' doesn't mean this is going to help; and the reason is simply because of what I said before, that these terms in here are really unclear. I really would like somebody to explain, and they are not defined anywhere, who determines prevent imminent death or great bodily harm?

So, let's say I am a victim of domestic violence and I think my perpetrator is going to kill me. Does imminent death and, in this word, say, last only as long as immediately necessary to prevent the imminent death? So does that mean the person who--my friend who can lend me a gun has to be right there in the same room and see that there is imminent death coming?

I mean, there is no definition here. So it is unclear to me that this would help at all.

Also, what is the definition of ``temporary transfer''? How long is that? How long is temporary transfer? Does that mean, you know, just enough time you can throw somebody a gun while they are imminently in death? I mean, do you have to be right there? What does this mean? There is no definition.

So, if we are going to proceed with this, I think that we should at least define what these terms mean. Therefore, I really wish that my amendment that said that victims of domestic violence or sexual abuse that have an order of protection through the court--through the court-- would be allowed to at least borrow a gun to defend themselves from, maybe, a friend.

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

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

I would like to refute some of the things, or talk about some of the things said by my friends on the other side.

One of the things that I do want to talk about is that Mr. Raskin said that my amendment is such a narrow exception for domestic violence victims. I had a broader one in Judiciary Committee, if the gentleman remembers, and Chairman Nadler told me that it was too broad, that it was too vague, so that is why I made it very specific.

If the gentleman would like, I will make it broad again.

Also in the Rules Committee, there was another amendment as well, and we are both on Rules, too, of course.

There was a broader one from Mr. Scalise, who is a victim of gun violence. He had an amendment that was ruled out of order. That basically said any victim of domestic violence, which was broad, but then he had another subsection that said victim of domestic violence or sexual abuse that has an order of protection. So we covered both, yet it was ruled out of order. So we really tried.

Now, the other thing that you brought up, that it is very clear what imminent danger means, and that would cover somebody, and surely a domestic violence victim would not become a criminal under this law. Well, I don't think it is very sure.

So I ask Mr. Raskin, my colleague, if he would be open to removing the word ``imminent'' and just say ``danger,'' instead of ``imminent danger,'' because to me, ``imminent danger'' means you have to be right in the same room, you know, and throw somebody a gun or something. I mean, to me, the word ``imminent'' needs to be removed from the language.

The other thing I would like to talk about is the number of times now my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said: Oh, so many people support this universal background check.

Well, I disagree. I disagree, because there is proof right in Maine. They had a ballot measure, and it was rejected by the majority of the people.

I suppose it depends on how you ask the question, but I just don't think that when you get into the details of how it takes away our fundamental Second Amendment rights and actually burdens law-abiding citizens and actually may harm people, some of these laws--like was the case with the young woman who testified in Judiciary who said that good-intentioned gun laws actually prevented her from defending herself, and she was raped.

So I would say I have some disagreements with some of your statements.

I also want to point out that there are many things that we can do on a bipartisan basis, and this obviously is not bipartisan. I am a co- chairwoman of the Women's Caucus in Congress, and I have talked to my counterpart, a very nice woman and Congresswoman. We really do want to work on bipartisan solutions to gun violence. I would say one of those is let's really concentrate on mental health issues.

Now, we have done some things in the past. We did the Fix NICS Act, which we passed last year on a bipartisan basis, which really is an attempt to fix the national background system so that local jurisdictions actually report when there are problems, which I think is very valuable.

We also did legislation in a bipartisan manner that would protect our schools more.

Here is another thing we could do in a bipartisan manner. As you have noted, 3.5 million people have been stopped by NICS since 1994 from getting guns, and 112,000 were stopped just last year. But you know what? Only 12 of those 112,000 were actually prosecuted. Why? I mean, we have laws on the books now, and we are not even enforcing them. So I think that is another thing we can do on a bipartisan basis.

Again, this bill, I believe, does more harm than good. I do think my colleagues are well intentioned. I do believe that all of us, whether we are Republican or Democrat, want to reduce gun violence.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to make my amendment in order, which would allow domestic violence and sexual assault victims with orders of protection to be exempt from the gun transfer prohibitions. This amendment is crucial to saving lives.

As a survivor of domestic violence, I know what it is like to be in fear for our lives.

This commonsense amendment is clearcut. If you are a victim with an order of protection, you can borrow a firearm or transfer a firearm to you. It is important, because victims don't often have the means to purchase or go pay for a background check.

The Democrats have presented a letter from the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence as a reason for not needing my amendment. However, with all due respect, the National Task Force does not speak for every victim, and they certainly do not speak for me. In fact, they never even contacted me, and I have been an outspoken person saying I am a survivor of domestic violence since I ran for Congress. I am also the person who sponsored the amendment to extend the Violence Against Women Act, yet they have never talked to me or reached out to my office.

The majority offered a political amendment on domestic violence, which I have already talked about, which really does not do any good, because the definitions of imminent danger are not defined, and it will not be carried out and will not be effective.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, we all want to solve gun violence in the United States, but H.R. 8 and H.R. 1112 will not solve the problem.

As co-chairwoman of the bipartisan Women's Caucus, I am committed to working across the aisle on solutions we can all agree on. However, this is not one of them. We can talk about mental health. We can talk about strengthening the NICS background check system even more. We can talk about enforcing the laws that are already on the books.

H.R. 8 will turn law-abiding citizens into criminals by making everyday gun transfers a crime and putting those who seek to protect themselves in jail for wanting to do so.

H.R. 8 and H.R. 1112 will place an undue burden on citizens who already have a background check. For instance: security clearance, global entry, State-issued permits, et cetera.

These pieces of legislation put law-abiding citizens in danger by disarming them and emboldening criminals. The bad guys never follow the law. In fact, I believe that this legislation violates the Second Amendment of the Constitution because it does not prohibit undue fees for background checks and, thus, some people cannot afford them

and, thus, not be able to get a gun to defend themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I urge ``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' on the underlying measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members

may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that today we are considering H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019. We have promised the American people that Congress would take steps to reduce gun violence, and this bill is a critical first step toward doing so.

During the past 4 weeks, as the Judiciary Committee, and now the full House, have discussed the issue of gun violence, I have cited grim statistics. Nearly 40,000 Americans lost their lives because of guns in 2017. In fact, every day in America, on average, 34 people are murdered with a firearm, and more than 183 people are injured in an attack.

Gun violence of this magnitude is a distinctly American problem. A country-to-country comparison is shocking. For example, in 2011, the United Kingdom had 146 deaths due to gun violence; Denmark, 71; Portugal, 142; and Japan, just 30. The United States, that year, about 35,000.

A recent study in the American Journal of Medicine found that, compared to 22 other high-income countries, the gun-related murder rate in the United States is 25 times higher. Even when you adjust for population differences, Americans are disproportionately killed by gun violence.

Almost 25 years to the day after the Brady Act was first implemented, expanding our current background check requirement to cover virtually all gun transfers is one of the steps we must take to address this crisis.

Under current law, only licensed firearms dealers are required to conduct a background check before transferring a gun to another person. This means that gun shows, online sales, and other private sales can completely evade this vital tool for ensuring that guns do not get into the wrong hands. It is time to close this dangerous loophole.

This bill would make it illegal for any person who is not a licensed firearm importer, manufacturer, or dealer to transfer a firearm to any other person who is not so licensed without a background check. Individuals seeking to transfer a firearm under this measure would be required to visit a licensed firearms dealer to run the necessary background check before the transfer could be finalized.

The bill also provides a number of exceptions to this requirement, including gifts to family members and transfers for hunting, target shooting, and instances of imminent death or great bodily harm.

The FBI's internal assessment demonstrated that checks processed through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, often called NICS, are approximately 99.3 percent to 99.8 percent accurate, and in 90 percent of cases, the background checks are completed within 90 seconds. H.R. 8 will provide an accurate and speedy mechanism to help ensure firearms do not end up in the wrong hands.

There is no reason to continue to make it easy for people who are legally prohibited from possessing firearms to acquire them by circumventing the background check process. H.R. 8 would close this dangerous loophole and save many, many lives. That is why I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this vital legislation today.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bass), the chairperson of the Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), the chief author of this legislation and the chairman of the Gun Violence Prevention Task Force.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I will point out that the bill says:

Nothing in this act . . . shall be construed to authorize

the establishment, directly or indirectly, of a national

firearms registry.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Speaker of the House.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Garcia), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Swalwell).

Mr. Chair, how much time is remaining?

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Brown).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who is the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out the penalty in this bill that is being cited as $100,000 is in fact $1,000.

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

Yes, I have one more.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), who is the distinguished author of the bill.

Mr. Chair, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close.

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

Mr. Chair, we have heard the other side here say that some people lie on the forms; they are not prosecuted. Well, that may be, and maybe law enforcement ought to prosecute more people.

That doesn't negate the necessity for the bill. It doesn't negate the fact that too many people who shouldn't have guns, who are mentally unstable, who have committed crimes, and who are abusers get guns because they buy a gun at a gun show or not from a registered gun dealer and, therefore, do not have to undergo a background check.

Everyone who gets a gun should have to undergo a background check, with the few exceptions we put in the bill.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 8 is legislation that is long overdue for passage by this body and for enactment so that we can take a critical step overwhelmingly supported by the American people to protect us from gun violence.

We have had too many moments of silence, too many expressions of sympathy, too many deaths--39,000 deaths from guns last year--but little action here in Congress on this issue.

Today we act. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this vital bill to start taking back our streets from the killers, to start blocking people who shouldn't have them from having guns.

Save our lives.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment because it is fatally flawed and would undermine the public safety impact of the bill.

The amendment would add an exception to the background check requirement for anyone who is a participant in the TSA PreCheck program by the Department of Homeland Security.

By exempting those who have obtained a TSA PreCheck from the background check requirement, the amendment would allow many dangerous people, including people with disqualifying mental health conditions and some criminal convictions, to obtain firearms without a background check.

The current background system, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, was designed specifically for background checks pursuant to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.

The system, often called the NICS, contains the information that no other Federal database contains, and the TSA does not check NICS when determining a person's eligibility for the TSA PreCheck program.

Although participants in the TSA PreCheck program have had their criminal backgrounds vetted, the standards for approval and participation in the TSA PreCheck program are not the same and, in many cases, are more lenient than those which prohibit firearm possession and purchase.

For example, the NICS searches the records of people prohibited for mental health reasons during a firearms background check. These mental health reasons, though, are not part of the TSA PreCheck search.

As of January 31, there are more than 5.7 million of these mental health records in the NICS indexes, making it the second most populous category of prohibited records for firearm purchase.

Because the Department of Homeland Security does not have access to these mental health records for TSA PreCheck program purposes, individuals who have been adjudicated to be disqualified to own firearms for reasons of mental condition or have been committed to any mental institution may be accepted under the TSA PreCheck program but are not legally able to possess a gun. Under this amendment, they would be legally exempted from the background check requirement and would be able to get a gun, despite being legally prohibited from doing so.

The TSA bars people convicted of certain criminal offenses, such as rape or aggravated sexual abuse, from participating in the TSA PreCheck program only temporarily. It doesn't restrict people convicted of these serious crimes for more than 7 years, and it wouldn't bar people released from prison for these crimes within the last 5 years.

Under current law, these felony convictions prohibit possession or purchase of a weapon, but, under this amendment, people released from prison within the last 5 years for these crimes could get the weapons-- could get the weapons.

The TSA PreCheck program does not have a minimum age requirement, and this amendment would allow people under the ages of 18 and 21 to purchase firearms illegally and without a NICS background check.

Furthermore, the TSA PreCheck program only requires a background check every 5 years, and the PreCheck system may not be advised that a firearms disqualifying offense has taken place after the initial PreCheck background check has occurred.

In other words, you get the TSA PreCheck, and if you are convicted afterwards, within 5 years, for a very serious crime, under this amendment, you could get the gun, although, legally, you shouldn't without a background check, and the TSA PreCheck program would not have picked it up.

These shortcomings of the TSA PreCheck system make it an inadequate and dangerous substitute for a NICS background check. To prevent potentially prohibited purchasers from obtaining firearms, licensed dealers should conduct background checks on participants in the PreCheck program as they would with any other member of the public.

The blanket exception of this amendment for anyone who participates in the TSA PreCheck program would undermine the bill's ability to enhance public safety because it would enable people convicted of serious crimes, people adjudicated to have serious mental illnesses, to purchase guns without a background check, even though the TSA system would not pick them up.

The TSA system is not a substitute for the background check system. It doesn't pick up many of the crimes. It doesn't carry it forward. And it is not a substitute for this system.

To pass this amendment, which would allow people who have qualified under the TSA PreCheck program not to have background checks, would allow a lot of people who shouldn't have guns to have them. Therefore, I strongly oppose this amendment, and I ask that my colleagues vote ``no'' on this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment, which clarifies the bill's exemption for the background check requirement in instances of imminent threats or great bodily harm would apply to someone who is at risk of committing suicide.

The amendment makes clear that the limited number of exemptions to the background check requirement include circumstances in which someone feels that they are a danger to themselves. They may temporarily transfer a firearm until the danger has passed. This is a limited and reasonable exemption that only applies to those who fear they will harm themselves, so that they may temporary surrender their weapon.

I listened to the gentleman from Georgia, and I appreciate he doesn't think that the amendment goes far enough or solves the underlying problems of the bill, as he sees it. But even from his point of view, it should go in the right direction. So I urge everyone to support this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Chair, I simply want to say I support this amendment, which clarifies that great bodily harm is included in the exception to the bill's background check requirement, includes domestic violence, sexual assaults, stalking, et cetera. It is a good amendment. I urge people to support it.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I reserve a point of order.

Madam Speaker, I withdraw my reservation.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, let's remember what we are dealing with. We are dealing with the fact that current Federal law with respect to firearms background checks is dangerously limited and flawed because background checks are only required for sales by licensed gun dealers and that many, many people get a gun at a gun show or from someone else. Something like 20 percent, I think the figure is, or 25 percent of gun sales escape background checks.

So all kinds of people who may be criminals, who may be mentally ill, and who may be domestic abusers who shouldn't have guns get guns, and that results in lives forfeited. It results in people killed.

This bill goes a long way toward solving that by saying we are going to require background checks of everyone who gets a gun, with some exceptions, with some reasonable exceptions which are in the bill.

Now, along comes this motion to recommit, which is a total red herring having nothing to do with the purpose of the bill, and says that, if someone fails a background check because he is illegally in this country, you should report that to ICE.

First of all, if he fails a background check because he is illegally in the country, that means the system knows he is illegally in the country. It means they already know that.

So what is the point of reporting him? He has to be in the system as illegally in the country in order to fail the background check because of section (g)(5). So we already know that, and this is totally circular, number one.

Number two, this is just a red herring to try to mix up the immigration issue with the gun violence issue, and they really have nothing to do with each other.

Number three, for 8 years, we couldn't get a hearing--not a hearing in a committee--on this bill or on any real bill to stop the plague of handgun violence in this country.

Madam Speaker, 150 people killed in Great Britain, 95 in Austria or wherever, 39,000 in the United States--no one will tell me that Americans are 10,000 times as mentally ill as Europeans or Japanese. The problem is we don't have adequate protections on guns. This bill goes in the direction of doing it, and they want to sabotage the bill with a phony issue raised by this MTR.

Now, there is an issue. If people fail the background check for various reasons, then you can make a case it should be reported to local law enforcement agencies. Mr. Cicilline has a bill to do just that. I am going to yield to him in a second. But the fact is it has nothing to do with this bill. It is just an attempt to sabotage this bill.

If you believe that we ought to cut down on the plague of gun violence in this country, that we ought to save lives, that we ought to get rid of all these people who shouldn't have guns having guns, and that we ought to have background checks in sensible situations, then vote against the motion to recommit and for the bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Madam Speaker, let us not accept this red herring. Let us not divert. Vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit and ``yes'' on the bill.

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

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the House on the motion to recommit, I report the bill, H.R. 8, back to the House with an amendment.

Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman, and I certainly thank the ranking member for being present here today. I hold up in my hand pages and pages of mass shootings, which I will include in the Record.

List of Mass Shootings Since Columbine Massacre

(By Zayed Abdalla, Feb 20, 2018)

Below is a list of all mass shootings in the United States

which occurred after the Columbine High School Massacre.

Dates and death tolls (excluding the shooter) are included.

Although many other mass shootings have occurred, for the

sake of time and physical space, only shootings involving the

death of five or more people have been included in this

article.

1. Columbine High School Shooting, Littleton, Colorado--

April 1999: 13 Dead

2. Atlanta Shootings, Atlanta, Georgia--July 1999: 12 Dead

3. Wedgwood Baptist Church shooting, Fort Worth, Texas--

September 1999: 7 Dead

4. Xerox Killings, Honolulu, Hawaii--November 1999: 7 Dead

5. Tampa Hotel Shootings, Tampa, Florida--December 1999: 5

Dead

6. Wakefield Massacre, Wakefield, Massachusetts--December

2000: 7 Dead

7. Lockheed Martin Shooting, Median, Mississippi--July

2003: 6 Dead

8. Living Church of God Shooting, Brookfield, Wisconsin--

March 2005: 7 Dead

9. Red Lake High School, Red Lake Indian Reservation,

Minnesota--March 2005: 9 Dead

10. Goleta Postal Shootings, Goleta, California--January

2006: 7 Dead

11. Capitol Hill Massacre, Seattle Washington--March 2006:

6 Dead

12. West Nickel Mines Amish School, Nickel Mines,

Pennsylvania--October 2006: 5 Dead

13. Tolley Square Shooting, Salt Lake City, Utah--February

2007: 5 Dead

14. Virginia Tech University, Blacksburg, Virginia--April

2007: 32 Dead

15. Crandon Shooting, Crandon Wisconsin--October 2007: 6

Dead

16. Westroads Mall Shooting, Omaha Nebraska--December 2007:

8 Dead

17. Kirkwood City Council Shooting, Kirkwood, Missouri--

February 2008: 6 Dead

18. Northern Illinois University, Dekalb, Illinois--

February 2008: 5 Dead

19. Atlantis Plastics Shooting, Henderson Kentucky--June

2008: 5 Dead

20. Carthage Nursing Home Shooting--Carthage, North

Carolina--March 2009: 8 Dead

21. Geneva County Massacre, Geneva and Samson, Alabama--

March 2009: 10 Dead

22. Binghampton Shootings, Binghampton--April 2009: 13 Dead

23. Fort Hood Shooting, Fort Hood, Texas--November 2009: 13

Dead

24. Hartford Beer Distributor Shooting, Manchester,

Connecticut--August 2010: 8 Dead

25. Tucson Shooting, Tucson, Arizona--January 2011: 6 Dead

26. Seal Beach Shooting, Seal Beach, California--October

2011: 8 Dead

27. Oikos University, Oakland, California--April 2012: 7

Dead

28. Seattle Cafe Shooting, Seattle, Washington--May 2012: 5

Dead

29. Aurora Shooting, Aurora, Colorado--July 2012: 12 Dead

30. Sikh Temple Shooting, Oak Creek, Wisconsin--August

2012: 6 Dead

31. Accent Signage Systems Shooting, Minneapolis,

Minnesota--September 2012: 6 Dead

32. Sandy Hook Elementary School, Newtown, Connecticut--

December 2012: 27 Dead

33. Santa Monica College, Santa Monica, California--June

2013: 5 Dead

34. Hialeah Shooting, Hialeah, Florida--July 2013: 6 Dead

35. Washington Navy Yard Shooting, Washington D.C.--

September 2013: 12 Dead

36. University of California Santa Barbara, Isla Vista,

California--May 2014: 6 Dead

37. Marysville Pilchuck High School, Marysville,

Washington--October 2014: 4 Dead

38. Charleston Church Shooting, Charleston, South

Carolina--June 2015: 9 Dead

39. Chattanooga Military Recruitment Center, Chattanooga

Tennessee--July 2015: 5 Dead

40. Umpqua Community College, Roseburg, Oregon--October

2015: 9 Dead

41. San Bernardino Attack, San Bernardino, California--

December 2015: 14 Dead

42. Kalamazoo Shooting Spree, Kalamazoo County, Michigan--

February 2016: 6 Dead

43. Orlando Night-club Shooting, Orlando, Florida--June

2016: 49 Dead

44. Dallas Police Shooting, Dallas Texas--July 2016: 5 Dead

45. Cascade Mall Shooting, Burlington, Washington--

September 2016: 5 Dead

46. Fort Lauderdale Airport Shooting, Fort Lauderdale,

Florida- January 2017: 5 Dead

47. Las Vegas Shooting, Las Vegas, Nevada--October 2017: 58

Dead

48. Sutherland Springs Church, Sutherland Springs, Texas--

November 2017: 26 Dead

49. Rancho Tehama Shooting, Rancho Tehama, California--

November 2017: 5 Dead

50. Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, Parkland,

Florida--February 2018: 17 Dead

According to The Washington Post, since 1966, 1077

individuals have been fatally shot and wounded as a result of

mass shootings in which more than four people perished;

Children and teenagers compose about a tenth of these

fatalities. Almost 300 guns have been obtained by authorities

in these shootings, and over half of them were obtained

legally. The AR-15 rifle has been increasingly used in such

shootings, with the latest being in this month's most recent

high school shooting in Florida. It is estimated that more

than 8 million of these weapons are owned in American

households. The trend in mass shootings has been rising

notably since 2006-07.

Mr. Chair, I thank Moms Demand Action, and I thank all those who have offered themselves in this fight. I thank our chair, Mr. Thompson, for his constant and persistent work.

Through my tenure as ranking member of the Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee, and now third in seniority on the Judiciary Committee, it has given me a picture that many have not seen, and that is that we have been fighting for gun safety legislation for almost three decades.

It seems that even though Mr. Cohen is in a hearing right now where facts are being disputed, there are no facts to dispute the fact that people die from guns. And those who get guns are never regulated.

By no means do I want you not to have a handgun to protect yourself, or to enforce gun trafficking laws, or to make sure that prosecutors prosecute those for gun possession, but it begs the question. What is the question? The interpretation of the Second Amendment is no one should prohibit the right to bear arms. As I stand here today, there is nothing in the underlying bill that is prohibiting that.

It is simply common sense and giving dignity to those who died at the Columbine High School shooting, the Atlanta shooting, the Wedgwood Baptist Church shooting, the Lockheed Martin shooting, the Living Church of God shooting, the Red Lake High School shooting, the Northern Illinois University shooting, the Santa Fe shooting in Texas, the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, and the Sutherland Springs church shooting in Texas.

It says that you have to have a check, a background check. It closes the gun show loophole. It gives exemptions for the issues of domestic violence and sexual assault. It allows families to transfer, and ranchers, farmers, and fishers to transfer.

My God, what more do we want? People have died. Are we not going to show that we are committed to saving lives, not to abuse the Second Amendment, to misuse it? We can bear arms. But the question is whether or not we will recognize that there are 350-plus million Americans, and there are more guns in this country than there are citizens.

I beg of my colleagues: Stop the violence. Vote for this bill.

Mr. Chair, as a senior member of the Judiciary Committee and an original co-sponsor, I rise in strong of H.R. 8, the ``Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019,'' legislation that strengthens the background check system that is already in place to purchase a firearm.

A 2013 study found that approximately 80 percent of all firearms acquired for criminal purposes were obtained from sources who were not required to run a background check and that 96 percent of inmates who were not prohibited from possessing a firearm at the time they committed their crime obtained their gun this way.

This loophole exists largely because unlicensed sellers need not conduct any background check under current law, even if the sellers sell a large number of guns.

H.R. 8, the ``Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019,'' would make it illegal for any person who is not a licensed firearm importer, manufacturer, or dealer to transfer a firearm to any other person who is not so licensed without a background check.

Individuals seeking to transfer a firearm under this measure would be required to visit a licensed firearms dealer to run the necessary background check before the transfer could be finalized.

H.R. 8 is intended to provide an accurate and speedy means of ensuring firearms do not end up in the wrong hands.

An internal assessment by the Federal Bureau of investigation (FBI) demonstrated that the National Instant Criminal Background Checks System (``NICS'') yields results that are approximately 99.3 percent to 99.8 percent accurate, and in 90 percent of cases, are processed within 90 seconds.

We must be constructive and proactive in our response to the countless mass shootings and gun violence in our country that continue to claim so many innocent lives.

Newly released data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (``CDC'') found firearm-related deaths rose for the second- straight year in 2016, largely due to spikes in gun violence.

In 2016, the new CDC report on preliminary mortality data shows that there were more than 38,000 gun-related deaths in the U.S.--4,000 more than 2015.

An Associated Press analysis of FBI data shows there were about 11,000 gun-related homicides in 2016, up from 9,600 in 2015.

Congress must act to keep our country safe through gun safety and violence deterrence.

There is nearly one mass shooting per day in the United States--355 mass shootings in 2015.

In December 2012, a gunman walked into Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, and killed 20 children, 6 adults, and himself.

Since December 2012, there have been at least 1,518 mass shootings, with at least 1,715 people killed and 6,089 wounded.

On the night of October 1, 2017, a gunman opened fire on a large crowd of concertgoers at the Route 91 Harvest Music Festival on the Las Vegas Strip, leaving 58 people dead and 527 injured.

On November 5, 2017, a mass shooting occurred at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, where the gunman, 26-year-old Devin Patrick Kelley, killed 26 and injured 20 others.

Every day, on average, 92 Americans are victims of gun violence, resulting in more than 33,000 deaths annually.

States with higher gun ownership rates have higher gun murder rates-- as much as 114 percent higher than other states.

A recent study by the CDC looking at 30 years of homicide data found that for every 1 percent increase in a state's gun ownership rate, there is a nearly 1 percent increase in its firearm homicide rate.

Gun death rates are generally lower in states with restrictions such as safe storage requirements or assault weapons bans.

Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 33 years: 0.

This is why legislation put forward to arm teachers is not the solution.

Stronger legislation is needed to prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands because unfortunately, more than 75 percent of the weapons used in mass shootings between 1982 and 2012 were obtained legally.

We must look at gun violence in its totality to determine what are the root causes of these alarming rates of lives cut short.

We are elected by our constituents to lead in resolving the issues that plague our country, and the issue of gun violence is a definite plague across the nation.

My good friend, Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo, gave a statement after four of his officers were shot while on duty.

He rightfully admonished us elected officials who, so far, have accomplished absolutely nothing about the public-health epidemic of gun violence.

Thanks to the new Democratic majority in Congress, we had a long overdue Gun Safety Hearing in the Judiciary Committee.

That hearing is the first step in the legislative process of addressing the epidemic.

Chief Acevedo was a witness at that hearing, testifying that if the proposed legislation on background checks is enacted and saves at least one life, then it is worth it.

I want to take this opportunity to thank my colleague, Congressman Mike Thompson, for his leadership of the Gun Violence Prevention Task Force and for introducing this timely and important legislation.

Congressman Thompson sat in the audience during the entirety of the Gun Safety Hearing on February 13, 2019, demonstrating his longstanding commitment to the issue.

Also helping to bring us to this point today is Congresswoman Robin Kelly of Illinois, who represents one of the most affected districts when it comes to gun violence.

She is a valiant leader who will not rest until the Congress finds solutions for communities like hers and others all over this country.

I want to thank Aalayah Eastmond, a survivor from the Parkland School Shooting, for testifying as a witness at the House Judiciary Gun Safety Hearing.

Her heartfelt and vivid testimony was met with a standing ovation by the crowded audience in the hearing.

Back in my state, despite incident after incident of rampant gun violence, Texas Governor Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton, both prominent Republican opponents of gun control, issued the usual statements offering the usual thoughts and prayers.

Chief Acevedo said, ``I appreciate your prayers . . . but the question is, what are policymakers willing to do, besides prayers, to address a public-health epidemic?''

I want to answer his question--``what ARE we going to do?''

We are going to overcome the fierce opposition from House minority members.

We are going to overcome a recalcitrant and reluctant Senate.

And finally, we are going to overcome the opposition of the President and the gun lobby.

I am a defender and supporter of the Constitution.

I appreciate the Second Amendment and the right that it provides our citizens.

However, I am also a defender of the right to live, the greatest divine right of all.

I want all Americans to enjoy their Second Amendment right, but not at the expense of the lives of our children, students, communities, and law enforcement officials.

Imagine going to grade school in this day and age and having to undergo ``active shooter'' drills.

Imagine having children in grade school today.

Imagine the anxiety parents feel knowing that any day the precious lives of their children may be interrupted by someone with an AK-47 or