H.R. 57House116th Congress (2019-2021)In Committee

CAPITALS Act

AI-Generated Summary

Updated April 13, 2026 at 11:44 PM UTC

The CAPITALS Act directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to examine whether a civilian cyber‑defense reserve could be created within DHS to protect the nation’s critical infrastructure from cyber attacks and other catastrophic incidents. The study must consider costs, staffing, recruitment sources, training, command structures, and how states could request assistance. Findings are to be reported to the relevant House and Senate committees within 240 days.

Key Provisions

The DHS Secretary must conduct a feasibility study on establishing a Civilian Cyber Defense National Resource.
The study can involve input from the Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of Defense.
The study must evaluate cost, required personnel, recruitment sources (industry, academia, contractors), training, command and control, logistics for state requests, and the overall benefits and drawbacks of such a resource.
A report of the study’s results must be submitted to the House and Senate Homeland Security committees within 240 days, in an unclassified format with an optional classified annex.

Legislative Activity

Stay on top of the latest movement without scrolling through every action

2 earlier actions

HouseCommittee Latest Action

Referred to the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection, and Innovation.

Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Protection Subcommittee

February 4, 2019

View full timeline

HouseIntro Referral

Introduced in House

January 3, 2019

HouseIntro Referral

Referred to the House Committee on Homeland Security.

Homeland Security Committee

January 3, 2019

HouseCommittee

Referred to the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection, and Innovation.

Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Protection Subcommittee

February 4, 2019

Floor Debate

23 members

What members said about H.R. 57 on the floor

+18

7 Republicans16 Democrats

Rep. Sheila Jackson LeeD-TX-18 · Feb 28, 2019

Madam Chair, I thank the chairman and Mr. Clyburn, who, for years, has been working on this issue. Madam Chair, H.R. 1112, the Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019, is long in coming. It responds…

Madam Chair, I thank the chairman and Mr. Clyburn, who, for years, has been working on this issue.

Madam Chair, H.R. 1112, the Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019, is long in coming. It responds to many people, but it responds to Dylann Roof.

In 2015, he went to a gun store to get a gun. He was not the normal purchaser, and it did not approve in 90 seconds, as most of them do. But in a day or two, when it had not yet been approved, Dylann Roof was able to get a gun. And Dylann Roof's whole message was: I am going to start a race war by going into an unlocked church on a prayer night and kill nine worshippers praying to their God and their pastor--whose wife was here today.

The question has to be: When are we going to stop the senseless killings and the eons and eons of mass shootings?

My good friend from Georgia (Mr. Collins) is a man of faith. I was in the committee room as a senior member on the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations as we were trying to deliberate his concern, a very vital concern, one that I have, to love people with disabilities, to love them and treat them with dignity.

The language in this legislation does that as best we could at the time, because it puts the language adjudicated, determined by some objective body, that you have a health problem that deals with a mental concern.

The question has to be, if it is not workable, you pass the bill. All of us have made a commitment to work through this process and to give dignity to every person, including veterans.

But at the same time, would you want to have a situation that happened with Dylann Roof, a convicted felon who grabbed a gun in 2 days and killed nine innocent people, or killed people in various other places, from Columbine, to Aurora, to Virginia Tech?

Look at the stories of mass shootings, or look at the violence in cities where people are getting guns.

Madam Chair, I would make the argument that, today, we must pass H.R. 1112. The mercy of all of us dealing with issues to give dignity to those who suffer from illnesses that embrace mental illness concerns, it was because Mr. Collins, a man of faith, offered that suggestion. Therefore, we are going to move forward with the commitment to work it through and provide the dignity necessary, but to save the lives and to give tribute in death to those who lost their lives at the hands of Dylann Roof. Vote for H.R. 1112.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 1112, the ``Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019,'' legislation that would strengthen the background check system that is already in place to purchase a firearm.

I thank the Majority Whip, Congressman Clyburn, for introducing H.R. 1112 in response to the atrocity perpetrated at Mother Emmanuel A.M.E. Church in Charleston,

South Carolina, which killed nine members of one of the most historically significant churches in African American history.

One June 17, 2015, Dylann Roof was responsible for the mass shooting that took the lives of nine individuals at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church.

The victims were later referred to as ``The Charleston Nine'' and ``The Emanuel Nine''.

Under current law, after a prospective buyer completes the appropriate form, the holder of a Federal Firearms License initiates the background check by phone or computer.

If a determination is not obtained within three business days then the transfer may legally be completed by default proceeding and that is how Dylan Roof obtain the handgun he used to commit the killings, which he purchased from a retail store in West Columbia, SC.

H.R 1112, the ``Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019,'' would strengthen the background check procedures that firearms licensees or dealers follow before selling or transferring a firearm.

As under current law, firearms dealers would be required to run a background check on prospective buyers using the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (``NICS'').

Over 90% of NICS checks are completed within 90 seconds.

Under H.R. 1112, if the NICS system has not returned an answer to the licensed firearms dealer within ten days, the prospective firearms purchaser may file a petition with the Attorney General for review.

Then, after another ten-day period has expired, the licensed firearms dealer may sell or transfer the firearm to the prospective purchaser if it has not received a response through the NICS system and the dealer has no reason to believe that the purchaser is prohibited from obtaining a firearm under federal, state, or local law.

Under this measure, licensed firearms dealers could not sell or transfer under the ``default proceed'' provision until at least 20 days have passed since the initial background check, thus closing the so- called ``Charleston loophole.''

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 State--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.

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

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman very much, and I thank him for his leadership on a very

important enhancement to the Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019, which requires the FBI to report on the number of petitions it was not able to make a determination on within the 10-day period.

I think Mr. Schneider knows that why we are here on the floor is to save lives, to be able to protect innocent people from being subjected to what the Emanuel Nine were: worshippers in a church with their pastor, praying, as this country allows one to do.

It is my belief that the Schneider-Jackson Lee amendment should be passed, because with this critical data and compliance reporting we can learn more about legislative injustices like the one that enabled Dylann Roof to process a handgun used to murder the nine innocent persons at Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina, and to remind everybody he had not been approved by the NICS reporting system, and he was able to come back. This system allows us to know how many have not been approved, to be able to address the question, to have better policies dealing with protecting gun violence.

It is my privilege to join my colleague in supporting the Schneider- Jackson Lee amendment.

Madam Chair, I close by saying that this tracks the Accidental Firearms Transfer Reporting Act that I introduced in previous Congresses in H.R. 3125 and H.R. 57.

I look forward to working with my colleague as we expand reasonable gun safety legislation to protect our children, our families, and Americans.

Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of this amendment which I am proud to cosponsor with the gentleman from Illinois, Congressman Brad Schneider.

I thank the Rules Committee for making the Schneider/Jackson Lee Amendment in order and thank the Majority Whip for introducing the underlying legislation, H.R. 1112, the ``Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019.''

H.R. 1112, the ``Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019,'' would strengthen the background check procedures that firearms licensees or dealers follow before selling or transferring a firearm.

As under current law, firearms dealers would be required to run a background check on prospective buyers using the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (``NICS'').

Over 90% of NICS checks are completed within 90 seconds.

If the NICS system has not returned an answer to the licensed firearms dealer within ten days, the prospective firearms purchaser may file a petition with the Attorney General for review.

Under this measure, licensed firearms dealers could not sell or transfer under the ``default proceed'' provision until at least 20 days have passed since the initial background check.

The Schneider/Jackson Lee Amendment strengthens the bill by requiring the FBI to report on the number of petitions on which it was not able to make a determination regarding the eligibility of the transferee to possess a firearm within the 10-day period allotted by H.R. 1112.

I urge my colleagues to support the Schneider/Jackson Lee Amendment because, with this critical data and compliance reporting, we can learn more about legislative interstices like the one that enabled Dylan Roof to possess the handgun used to murder 9 innocent persons at Mother Emanuel A.M.E. Church in Charleston, South Carolina, as well as the numerous other cases where a firearm was handed over to an unintended and potentially dangerous recipient.

Making sure that policy makers have the most accurate, reliable, and current data regarding background checks is one of the main reasons I introduced the Accidental Firearms Transfers Reporting Act in the 114th and 115th Congress (H.R. 3125 and H.R. 57 respectively).

Madam Chair, if anything, it is gun violence that is a national emergency, and reducing gun violence should be one of Congress's highest priorities.

The Schneider/Jackson Lee Amendment will help to do that.

I ask my colleagues to support the Schneider/Jackson Lee Amendment in order.

Again, I thank Majority Whip Clyburn for introducing the underlying legislation and Congressman Schneider for his work on this salutary amendment.

I urge all Members to support the Schneider/Jackson Lee Amendment.

[Feb. 20, 2018]

List of Mass Shootings Since Columbine Massacre

(By Zayed Abdalla)

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

Rep. Doug CollinsR-GA-9 · Feb 28, 2019

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, here we go again. Just like yesterday, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted to criminalize the transfer of a…

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

Madam Chair, here we go again. Just like yesterday, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted to criminalize the transfer of a firearm between two law-abiding citizens.

Today, they further reveal this interest by bringing up a bill that would prohibit law-abiding citizens from ever being able to acquire firearms. And that is not hyperbole, Madam Chair; it is fact.

Let me briefly explain how that would happen. Allow me to walk through the mechanics of this legislation.

Let's start at the beginning of the month. Assume I went to a Federal firearms licensee, an FFL, to purchase a firearm on Friday, February 1, of this month. Under H.R. 1112, the FBI's NICS system has 10 business days to respond to the FFL.

The tenth business day is a Friday, February the 15th. If, after those 10 business days, NICS does not okay the transfer, I must file a petition with the Department of Justice certifying that I have no reason to believe that I am prohibited by Federal, State, or local law from purchasing or possessing a firearm.

Once that petition is filed, the NICS system has an additional 10 days to make a determination. That would be Monday, March 5, in our example because February 18 was a Federal holiday and not a business day.

If, at the conclusion of the 20 business days waiting period, NICS does not deny the transfer, I could then acquire the firearm.

But wait, Madam Chair. Under existing law, the NICS background check is only valid for 30 calendar days from the date it is initiated. Under our example, that would be Saturday, March the 2nd, which is 2 days before my petition is required to be acted upon.

At that point, I would be required to start the process over again entirely. There could be no end to this cycle.

Now, I am not sure if H.R. 1112 was written this way out of just messed-up writing or malice. I am not sure. But it does do this, and there is no mistaking what is written.

As I have said many times, we do not vote on aspirational ideas in this Chamber. They are great to debate, but we do not vote on aspirational ideas. We vote on words on paper, and words on paper are just as I have described.

I will let the American people determine what the intent was here. However, as I noted yesterday, in the rush to put this to the floor, they did not bother to fix some several major issues.

We also know, as we go forward in this that this indefinite and perpetual delay of the transfer of firearms to law-abiding citizens is perhaps the intent of this bill.

Keep in mind, under current law, an FFL has the option to transfer the firearm after 3 business days unless the transfer has been denied by NICS.

I would contend that 3 business days is not instant and a month is anything but instant, particularly as technologies continue to advance.

These laws have real-world consequences, and consequences can be deadly.

Carol Bowne was a New Jersey resident with a restraining order against her ex-boyfriend. Her application for a firearm took longer than 40 days to process, and he stabbed her to death while she was waiting to legally protect herself.

Let that sink in.

This bill would empower abusers and violent predators by making their victims more vulnerable.

Madam Chair, we oppose this legislation. It doesn't make sense in its current form. It will do nothing to make our communities safer, but it will make it harder for law-abiding citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights and to defend themselves and their families.

Madam Chair, I am not often going to be able to say this, but I am joined today by the ACLU, who is opposing this bill and scoring against this bill.

It is not ready for prime time. It is ready to go back to actually have hearings and actually do markups and actually work with this bill.

I appreciate the gentleman, especially, from South Carolina's intent. No one fights stronger for his constituency than the gentleman from South Carolina. This is just not the right piece of legislation at the right time for the reasons that I spoke of, that have nothing to do with the intent. It has everything to do with words on paper. Remember, Madam Chair, that is what we vote on, not aspirational ideas.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Look, I have great sympathy for what the gentleman from South Carolina just spoke of. But, also, I have even greater sympathy for the fact it could have been avoided and had nothing, frankly, to do at the end when the FBI under Mr. Comey actually admitted that there were mistakes made. The FBI could have stopped that instead of letting it happen. They saw problems. They let it go. It could have stopped.

This was already in law, Madam Chair. It could have stopped.

Yes, what I laid out for you is not just simply 20 business days, when you look at the fact that, coupled with other restrictions, it can do what we said.

I have great sympathy and grief for every loss of life, no matter where it comes from. But to simply say that this would have fixed it, when the FBI and others knew they could have fixed it at that moment and could have went later and got the guns, because there was a delay even in the horrific act that happened--again, we are simply talking about what is on the paper.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cline).

Madam Chair, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. David P. Roe).

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I am actually glad, and one thing I will agree on with my friend just now is I do agree that there is a right to life, and that is why I would love to see this House bring forth the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which also protects life as well.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chair, I do appreciate the gentleman from New York clarifying that, but he just clarified it in the very way--because we had brought this up. It was late in the day, and we brought this up, and this language was offensive. And, frankly, Ms. Lofgren, who was in the chair at the time, presented this language as an alternative to get us to a place where, as we talked about, we could get to Rules to actually fix this.

This is why I have said so many times that I have not--I understand the majority's willingness to bring the bill forward. What I didn't understand here is the willingness of this majority to put themselves on a time table to bring bills that were not ready. The reason we did it that night was so that we could get to Rules.

I served on the Rules Committee for 4 years. We could have fixed it at Rules.

Dr. Roe actually just brought an amendment to Rules, but it was rejected.

I understand that now we are going to continue forward.

I have a daughter who has spina bifida, and many would say ``mental defective.'' For anyone in that community who believes that those who are born that way would be a mental defective is a problem. It needs to be fixed.

But the problem that we have here was a committee process that broke and a Rules process that broke. There were plenty of opportunities to address this, plenty of opportunities to discuss this. In the rush to do, again, what I said yesterday many times, what makes you feel good does not always heal you, now you have a problem, a valid problem.

But it was not a problem from the perspective of not trying to fix it. It came from the heart on both sides of the aisle to say this language is archaic, this language should not be there. There were plenty of times to fix it.

I appreciate the chairman. I am glad to hear his willingness to continue to work on this. What would another day have taken? What problem would an amendment voted up or down by Dr. Roe have caused on the floor?

I guess when the ACLU and others started scoring against it, we decided we might need to fix it.

Again, this is a process problem. I know nobody likes to talk about process problems because, at the end of the day, I believe the authors' intents behind these bills, I believe their intents

are good. I believe their process may be wrong, and I will speak to that, but this is a problem that we have.

I am glad the chairman is moving forward, I am glad the chairman is looking at this, and I am glad the chairman is willing to address this going forward, but it is just sad that we had to get here today, because this could have been fixed except for an arbitrary timeline put onto my chairman that he really had no control over, I believe, to bring something forward that is not ready for prime time.

I respect my chairman. I am glad that he has addressed this. I hope that they will give him plenty of time in the future to continue to work these problems out.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chair, I can go back through my opening statement and list the many reasons I oppose this bill that have nothing to do with the amendment that should have been fixed by the time we got to Rules, which was agreed upon. Actually, the language was given by Ms. Lofgren and staff, and we said that we will take that and move to Rules to fix it.

If you go back and look at my statement, I am opposing this bill for many other reasons that are very valid. I believe when you look for timing, you look for other things.

Again, I believe working the process is proper. Working the process will go through. The majority brought this to the floor, and they should have the votes to pass it. If not, then the Senate can work on this language, and we go forward.

I think the bigger issue is the very fundamental issue of the timing of this bill, the timing that it is not just 20 days, and it is not just 10 days. There is another, when you couple it with the actual 30- day restriction on the application itself. So there are plenty of reasons for me to oppose this bill.

The other part was simply a discussion that should have been fixed and wasn't. That is a tragedy, that we are coming to the floor and that even be a problem. But at the end of the day, we pointed it out, we tried to, and that is where it is at.

My problem with this bill is the bill itself and much of the language that we have here.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chair, in closing, we have had an interesting debate this morning. I think we went back on two points.

One, I believe I laid out the problems in a very methodical way on why this bill has serious defects in it that could possibly be fixed, if given long enough to work. I still may disagree with the premise of the bill, but it could have been worked out, when you actually take one part of law and combine it with another part of law. And we have seen a calendaring problem here. That is one part. That is the main part I have.

I think we have also seen how the process has not worked out again. Sometimes in life, getting it first is not best. Getting it quickly may not always be the best result. I think what we are seeing here is something that when we are dealing with the rights of individuals, especially in this area here and especially for the reasons that were given, which was a tragedy in Charleston that could have been stopped by the FBI that already had suspicions on not selling this firearm and could have went and taken that firearm, this is just a problem.

I have laid out as much as I can. I think the speakers have as well. There are many opposed to this. They will continue to be opposed to it, on both sides of the spectrum, our side from the perspective of our rights and those that are being violated, and the ACLU for what their reasons may be and others.

But it is time we had some honest discussion about what can actually deter this mass violence that we are seeing. Unfortunately, Madam Chair, we always speak of mass violence.

Why do we always have to go to the big violence? Why do we have to go to the ones who were killed that are tragedies that we all see? What about the ones that we can actually work on

where we give better enforcement to our law enforcement, better prosecution of gun crimes, better prosecution that affects a single life in a neighborhood today? Is a single life not as important as the ones that we are not affecting now?

I think as we look forward, I would ask that this, of course, be voted down. I think we have laid out a reason why it at least should be considered by all Members before they put their card in that machine to decide why they are supporting a bill that we believe has some obvious flaws to it. It is not the intent of the individual offering it, but the actual words on paper have flaws in them. That is why we oppose this bill.

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

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

To the good gentleman, I do not.

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

Madam Chair, I appreciate the gentleman here on this. It is good to fix this. But the only problem is, it doesn't fix it--I think that is the problem that we are looking at--as written. As we discussed earlier, your amendment claims to prevent this endless loop, but it fails to do so.

Per ATF regulation, a NICS check is only valid for 30 calendar days from when the NICS is initially contacted. This language does not extend the timeframe in the event of a delayed response, nor does it direct the attorney general to do so.

So if the purchaser completes the three-step process under H.R. 1112, then attempts to take possession of the firearm on calendar day 31, ATF regulations would suggest it is too late. The NICS check has expired, and as a result, the federally licensed firearms dealer would need to conduct a new NICS check while restarting the process.

Madam Chair, I did offer an amendment to extend the validity of the NICS check to 60 days to cure this deficiency, however, the Democrats refused to make my amendment in order. For that reason, I am glad that the gentleman is trying to fix this, which is where it should be, but it just doesn't fix it.

So we are again searching for an amendment and solution to a problem that could have been fixed, but this amendment does not fix it. I am glad the gentleman brought the amendment and in the plain reading of the statute and the plain reading of this amendment, this is a great attempt. It just falls short.

For that reason, I would urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment because it does not actually fix the problem we outlined earlier.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I appreciate my chairman, but I disagree, because there is still the 30-day limitation. The 30-day limitation is not done here, and so there is and could be a problem if it was done. I still have my time, and there is no time remaining.

The issue here is that if it is approved after the 30 days, then this bill does not fix it. The easy fix here was an amendment we offered that simply extended it for 60 days. That is your fix. Instead, we go through this where there can be, as all good things lawyerly, we can have lawyerly disagreements. I think in the end, when you actually go back and look at this, you will see that there is an interpretation problem here. The 30 days still exists.

Why could we have not just simply extended the NICS date for 60 days instead of 30 days instead of going through this exercise of legal interpretation?

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

Objection.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Rep. Jerrold NadlerD-NY-10 · Feb 28, 2019

Madam 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. 1112, the Enhanced Background…

Madam 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. 1112, the Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019.

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

Madam Chair, I am pleased that today we are considering H.R. 1112, the Enhanced Background Checks Act.

Yesterday, the House passed H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act, an important bill to expand our national firearms background check system to include virtually all gun transfers.

However, there are also steps we can take to make the current background check system more effective at blocking the sale of guns to individuals who are ineligible to purchase and possess them.

That is why I support H.R. 1112, a bill that addresses a dangerous shortcoming in the current firearms background check law.

In most cases, a licensed gun dealer receives notification within a few minutes, often 90 seconds, from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, sometimes called the NICS, that a prospective buyer has passed or failed the background check.

In a small percentage of cases, NICS examiners may require additional time to complete the background check if information is missing or unclear in a prospective buyer's record. For example, there may be on the record a notation that the prospective buyer was arrested but no notation as to whether the buyer was acquitted or convicted. That would have to be looked into further.

However, under current law, a licensed gun dealer conducting a background check on a prospective purchaser is permitted to sell the firearm to the purchaser if there has been no determination from NICS after 3 business days, even though NICS has not indicated that the person has actually passed the background check.

Often, we refer to this as a default proceed transaction.

These are the very cases that ought to be investigated. In 2017 alone, the ATF determined that over 4,000 default proceed firearms transfers went to purchasers who should not lawfully have gotten them because they could not lawfully own a firearm.

If NICS is unable to return an instant determination, and especially if there is no report after 3 days, there is real cause for concern.

One notable example of the tragic consequences of this loophole is the hate crime murder of nine people at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina, in 2015.

In that tragedy, the shooter was not legally allowed to possess a firearm as a result of drug charges, but he still was able to purchase his gun from a licensed dealer, who made the decision to transfer after 3 business days had elapsed, despite not having received a definitive response from the background check system.

The bill before us today, H.R. 1112, would strengthen the background check procedures Federal firearms licensees or dealers must follow before selling or transferring a firearm.

Under this bill, the initial period a gun dealer must wait for an answer from the NICS is extended from 3 days to 10 days. If, after 10 days, the NICS system has not returned an answer to the dealer, the prospective purchaser may file a petition with the attorney general, which should help resolve most applications in short order.

If an additional 10 days elapses without a response from NICS, the licensed firearms dealer then may sell or transfer the firearm to the prospective purchaser without the background check completion, if the dealer has no reason to believe that the purchaser is prohibited from obtaining a firearm under Federal, State, or local law.

The additional time for checks to be completed will help prevent the transfer of guns to individuals who are ineligible to possess them and will make us safer.

I want to remind everyone that, in 90 percent of the cases, the NICS system gives the answer within 90 seconds. So we are talking about a small number of cases, but a number of cases where we know there have been tragic results. We want to stop that.

I commend our colleague Congressman Jim Clyburn, the distinguished Democratic whip, for introducing this bipartisan bill, which is a sensible and necessary approach to addressing this dangerous shortcoming in current law.

Madam Chair, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill today, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the distinguished Democratic whip.

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

Madam Chair, I yield the gentleman from South Carolina an additional 1 minute.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bass), the chair of the Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security Subcommittee.

Madam Chairman, I yield the gentlewoman from California an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Underwood).

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath), a member of the committee.

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

Madam Chair, I heard the argument from the other side a moment ago that people adjudged ineligible for the system by the VA, that their names

should not be given into the system so that they may purchase firearms.

I would point out that one of the largest sources of mortality among veterans is suicide. Veterans are, I think, the highest group in our society in terms of suicide rate. So it really makes sense to make it easier for people adjudged not to be proper to have a gun to have a gun if you are worried about suicides. That argument is, frankly, nonsensical. I am very glad the VA helps protect our veterans by participating in the system.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), a member of the committee and the chairman of one of our subcommittees.

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

Madam Chair, at this time I would like to address a concern that has been raised by one section of the bill that is unrelated to the changes to current law to address the Charleston loophole.

Section 3 of the bill replaces outdated and offensive terminology in the categories of individuals who are ineligible to purchase or possess firearms under current law. Among those included, there are individuals subject to such prohibitions because, as stated by the current law, they are ``adjudicated as a mental defective.''

At the Judiciary Committee's markup of the bill, we agreed with our ranking member, Representative Collins, to replace this offensive language and to insert different terminology in the bill as a placeholder as we work to develop alternative language that does not alter the scope of who is included in these prohibitions and to work with stakeholders who have an interest in how this would be accomplished.

We have heard from various advocates in the mental health, disability rights, and veterans communities who have expressed their desire to develop an acceptable alternative. We agree.

Yesterday, the Veterans of Foreign Wars brought their concerns related to this issue to our attention. The VFW agrees that the current terminology is archaic but is concerned about a potential unintended consequence of replacing it.

Their concern is that replacing these terms with ``mental illness,'' ``severe developmental disability,'' or ``severe emotional instability'' could result in some veterans who are not now included being added to the NICS index due to their receipt of VA care or benefits for mental illnesses such as PTSD or traumatic brain injury.

It is not the intent of the changes in this terminology made by section 3 to alter the scope of those currently considered to be ``adjudicated as a mental defective.'' It is the intent simply to replace that offensive language, but not to change the underlying law.

We will work with stakeholders, including the VFW, the mental health community, and the disability rights community to address the concerns related to this outdated terminology in a manner that does not change the scope of present law as this bill proceeds.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chair, our mistake was in accepting the amendment from the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins). The amendment dealt with the underlying language of the underlying law, not with the bill. We should have insisted that an attempt to correct that language be in a separate bill.

The gentleman from Georgia is now telling us that we should kill this bill that will save so many lives because we have not figured out acceptable language to replace existing bad language in the existing law that had nothing to do with this bill.

We should pass this bill.

We will work as we go forward to see if we can come up with acceptable language, but in any event, we should pass this bill and deal with the separate problem of bad language in the underlying law separately.

Madam Chair, how much time do I have remaining?

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Kelly).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the committee.

Madam Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas.

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

Madam Chair, this is an important bill that addresses a significant, and tragically demonstrated, threat to public safety.

Today is the 25th anniversary of the implementation of the Brady Background Check Act. This lifesaving law has served us well, helping to prevent firearms from getting into the hands of those who are legally prohibited from possessing and purchasing them. But we know that some aspects of this law and the system that implements it must be updated and improved.

Let's remember what this bill does. All this bill does is give the FBI additional time--gives the NICS system additional time--to complete a background check in the 8 or 9 percent of cases where it is not done within 90 seconds. If you haven't gotten a background check back in 3 days, under this bill, you can't get it automatically, and you can't get the weapon automatically.

They have 10 days to do it. If after 10 days they still haven't done it, then you can petition the Attorney General. And if they still don't do it, get your firearm within 10 days. That will save a lot of lives.

We hear about mass shootings, but we also should remember that we are not talking about just mass shootings. Thirty-four people a day are killed in this country by guns--34 a day. Every other industrialized country in the world: 90 deaths with guns a year, 120, 170. The United States: 39,000.

How are we different? Are we thousands of times more mentally ill than people in Europe or Japan? No.

Are we more vicious? No.

Are our habits more degraded? No.

The difference is that this country is awash in guns. The difference is that, in this country, people who are dangerous can get guns.

These are modest steps. We should take much more advanced steps. We should ban assault weapons. We should ban large capacity magazine clips. But we are not doing that. We are starting with very moderate steps.

This is a very moderate step to improve the background check system. With all the rhetoric we hear, that is all it does. It gives a little extra time to make sure that someone who is dangerous, whose possession of a firearm is illegal, cannot get it.

Enacting this bill will save lives. I urge my colleagues to ignore all the nonsense rhetoric about extraneous considerations. Join me in supporting this bill today. Join me in supporting saving lives. Join me in making the United States a little safer to live in.

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

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I support this amendment, which requires the FBI to report on the number

of petitions it was not able to resolve with a determination within 10 days.

We know that providing more time for checks to be completed in the instances that more time is needed will help prevent guns from getting into the hands of those who are ineligible under current law from purchasing and possessing the guns.

The goal of this bill is to do just that, and to allow individuals whose checks take longer than 10 days to complete the opportunity to petition for their case to be reviewed within another 10-day period.

Madam Chair, the report required by this amendment will help us oversee the implementation of this new process and the changes instituted by this law. I urge my colleagues to support this salutary amendment.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I support this amendment to require the GAO to submit a report to the relevant congressional committees analyzing the extent to which the additions required by this bill prevent firearms from being transferred to prohibited persons.

It will be important for us to get information about the implementation of the law and its impact on so-called default proceed transactions. The amendment also requires that the GAO report its findings after 90 days and again after 1 year, 3 years, and 5 years.

I think it is always a good idea to actually track the effect of new legislation and see how effective it is.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment, and I commend the sponsor for doing so.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in support of this amendment, and this completely takes care of Mr. Collins' concern, whether he realizes it or not. Because this says that the transfer can take place for 25 days after the transfer becomes legally permissible.

In other words, under the longest timeframe, the background check doesn't come back within 10 days. The purchaser waits a few days, and then petitions the attorney general. It takes another 10 days. Then it becomes legally permissible.

This says the transfer can take place for 25 days after that. So there is no way that this doesn't take care of the problem that Mr. Collins raised, and then some.

The current procedures in place do not take into account the longer waiting period in the petition process that H.R. 1112 requires. This amendment more than takes care of that. It is a salutary amendment. It makes the system work, and I can't understand anybody, whether they support the bill or not, who wouldn't want to support this, so I support the amendment.

Rep. James E. ClyburnD-SC-6 · Feb 28, 2019

Madam Chair, I thank my friend for yielding me the time. Madam Chair, let me begin my remarks, first of all, by welcoming to our Capitol today Miss Jennifer Pinckney and her two daughters. They are…

Madam Chair, I thank my friend for yielding me the time.

Madam Chair, let me begin my remarks, first of all, by welcoming to our Capitol today Miss Jennifer Pinckney and her two daughters. They are the wife and children of Reverend Clementa Pinckney, who, along with eight of his Bible study parishioners, lost his life to a demented white supremacist who said that he was interested in starting a race war.

He entered their church, participated in the Bible study, into which they welcomed him. And, as they closed their study that evening and prayed for what they had experienced and for their next meeting, this gentleman, while their eyes were closed, opened his and slaughtered them.

I find it interesting that my colleague has talked about the inconvenience of waiting longer than 3 days to purchase a weapon, without mentioning those poor souls of Emanuel AME Church.

He has talked about people who might be inconvenienced; he has talked about something he read in the newspapers; but he has not mentioned them. Well, I am here today to say that the Members of this august body need to think a little bit about the value of those lives.

Are they more valuable than the inconvenience a gun purchaser may have by having to wait 10 rather than 3 days to make a purchase?

What would make one so anxious to purchase a gun in the first place? If you have got to have a gun right now, chances are you have no useful purpose, no redeeming value, in the purchase of that gun.

Maybe we ought to participate here, as Members of this body, in helping this purchaser with a cooling-off period, which is all we are asking to do here.

Charleston, South Carolina, is nicknamed the ``Holy City.'' Churches and steeples dominate the skyline of this historic city, which, until recently, had an ordinance that no building could be constructed higher than 55 feet, wanting nothing to obstruct its steeples.

Faith is fundamental to the Charleston community. However, that faith was rocked in June 2015 when this lone gunman rushed into this Bible study, after having studied the most historic African American churches in the State of South Carolina and developing a list of five churches, one of which was Emanuel AME.

He, by his own admission, selected this church because of its importance to the African American community, being the first organized place of worship in the South for African Americans.

He selected this. This was a hate crime of the first order, and we are saying we should not inconvenience him. And we did not inconvenience him. We allowed him to get that gun after 3 days, when it was around the fifth day that they found the glitch in the system and found him to be ineligible to own a gun.

We just had a gunman go into his workplace in Aurora, Illinois. He was ineligible to have a gun, but he was allowed to purchase the gun. When they found out that he was ineligible to have a gun, they then sent him a letter and said: Please bring us the gun back. You are not eligible to have a gun.

Give me a break. No, he didn't return the gun, because he had no redeeming value in having a gun. And he murdered his coworkers. And you are telling me we should not inconvenience him.

Well, my colleague, the chair of the committee, has laid out for you the procedure in this bill, a procedure that makes it a maximum, irrespective of what my colleague may say, it is a maximum of 20 working days, business days, that one would have in order to purchase a gun.

I would hope, as we move forward here today, we would think about those poor souls of Emanuel AME Church, and we think about those 4,000 people, 4,200 people, who purchased guns in 2016 using this loophole, and the 4,800 people who purchased guns in 2017 using this loophole. Think about their families. Think about their children. And think about what we are about to do here today.

Let me just take this minute to go back to what I had prepared to say here today.

In troubling times, many of us find solace in the Serenity Prayer: God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom--wisdom--to know the difference.

The Charleston loophole is something all Members of Congress should have the courage to change and, by doing so, grant the American people the serenity they deserve in their schools, in their entertainment venues, in their neighborhood streets, and, God forbid, in their places of worship.

Madam Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 1112, the Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019.

Charleston, South Carolina, is nicknamed the Holy City. Church spires dominate the skyline of this historic city, which, until recently, had an ordinance that no building could be constructed higher than 55 feet. In this city, faith is foundational. It is a source of strength and community that dates back centuries.

However, that faith was rocked in June 2015 when a lone gunman punctuated his participation in a Bible study at Emanuel AME

Church with gunshots fired upon the parishioners who had welcomed him, killing nine and wounding three others. The shooter targeted this place of worship because of its historic significance to the African-American community. This egregious hate crime shattered the sanctity of the Holy City, and in response Congress observed a moment of silence and all Americans offered thoughts and prayers.

While a moment of silence and our thoughts and prayers are appreciated in times of tragedy, they do nothing to solve the underlying problem. The real tragedy in Charleston is it could have been prevented. The gunman acquired the weapon used in the massacre because of a fault in the law that is now known as the Charleston Loophole. The gun purchase was subject to a background check; however, when a glitch in the system caused the background review to take more than the three-day limit allowed by law, the gunman was able to purchase the weapon, although it was later found that he was ineligible to purchase a gun. The system failed to stop this gun sale to an ineligible purchaser and 4,864 others in 2017.

It has been 25 years since the Brady Bill became law, and there has been no significant legislation enacted since to stem gun violence. Yet in 2017, 100 people were killed each day in this country with a firearm--which touches every district represented in this august body.

A vote in support of the Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019 extends the time allowed for law enforcement to conduct background checks. Under this bill, if the background check isn't concluded within 10 business days, the purchaser can request an expedited background check, which notifies law enforcement of the urgency of the review and starts an additional 10 business day period for the background check to be completed. While more than 96 percent of background checks are completed within three days--and 90 percent of Americans support background checks--this expedited review allows for law enforcement to complete the small percentage that may take longer than three days. If at the end of the expedited review the background check is inconclusive, then the purchase may proceed.

Restricting the Charleston Loophole doesn't prohibit law abiding citizens from purchasing a gun, but it does provide more time, if needed, for law enforcement to ensure weapons are not sold to those with criminal convictions or mental illness. This is an important first step our country should take to protect our citizens and their first amendment rights.

In troubling times many of us find solace in the Serenity prayer-- God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference.'' The Charleston Loophole is something all Members of Congress should have the courage to change and grant the American people the serenity they deserve in their schools, entertainment venues, neighborhood streets and--God forbid--their places of worship.

Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining?

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman so much for yielding the time.

Madam Speaker, let me just take this 1 minute to welcome to this Capitol Ms. Jennifer, Ms. Malana, and Ms. Eliana Pinckney, the widow and two surviving daughters of Reverend Clementa Pinckney.

They hid under his desk in the basement of Emanuel AME Church while a demented gentleman who wanted to start a race war, was welcomed into their Bible study--at the end of that hour, Reverend Clementa asked all of the worshippers to bow their heads and close their eyes as he prayed for what had occurred that evening. While their heads were bowed and their eyes closed, Dylann Roof opened his, after having been welcomed into their midst, and he slaughtered Reverend Pinckney and his eight worshippers.

Why? Because he was allowed to get this gun when he was not eligible to get one. They found out on the fifth day that he was ineligible but, by that point, it was too late. As a result, those poor souls lost their lives.

Let's give the FBI, let's give the authorities, enough time to do their jobs. We will save lives and we will be better off for it.

Rep. Tom RiceR-SC-7 · Feb 28, 2019

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk. Madam Chair, Dylann Roof is a monster. Dylann Roof should never have been able to buy a gun. Dylann Roof walked into a church in my hometown of…

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, Dylann Roof is a monster. Dylann Roof should never have been able to buy a gun. Dylann Roof walked into a church in my hometown of Charleston, South Carolina, my birthplace of Charleston, South Carolina, and he slaughtered nine people in a Bible study. I can't imagine a more horrific crime. We all, naturally, look for a response.

My friend, Mr. Clyburn, and the majority have noted that thousands of people have wrongfully acquired guns because of the failure of our background check system under what has become known as the Charleston loophole.

The stated purpose of this underlying legislation, Mr. Clyburn's legislation, is certainly noble: to close the Charleston loophole. The only problem is that it does not carry out that purpose.

Too often here, we take up noble causes; we create legislation with noble names; we pass this legislation to feel better; but the legislation fails to solve the problem in the title.

After these horrific murders, the families of the victims sued the Federal Government for allowing this monster to buy a gun.

Charleston Federal District Court Judge Gergen wrote a lengthy opinion in which he laid bare the Federal background check process and its failures in this case, the case of Dylann Roof. His opinion is available for anybody to read.

And in his 22-page opinion, he lays out the various structural flaws in the background check system. Most notably, that the FBI maintains four criminal databases. And under the background check system, the background checker is allowed to check only three of those.

Why? I assume because those are the three that existed in the nineties when the background check came into place.

There is a fourth one. It is more extensive and it is more detailed. It is called N-DEx. In this file was all the information that Dylann Roof's background checker needed to know to deny him the right to buy the gun. This N-DEx system contained that information, and it is maintained by the FBI. All they had to do was allow this background checker to look at that. The FBI has admitted had they been able to do that, this man--this monster--would never have been able to buy a gun.

My amendment would actually fix the Charleston loophole. The problem is that I cannot support the underlying legislation. Why? Because it creates an undue amount of time to be able to buy a gun.

And number two, the thing that bothers me the most, is that it shifts a part of the burden to the American citizen trying to exercise his Second Amendment rights. It requires him, in the event that you don't hear back from the government, to file a petition with the Federal court. I think this is an undue interference with his Second Amendment right; therefore, I cannot accept this underlying legislation.

The Senate has indicated it will not be taken up in the Senate; and the President has indicated that, if it passed, he would veto it. Therefore, I plan to withdraw my amendment.

I plan to offer it separately as a new piece of legislation, which will, in fact, close the Charleston loophole. It will allow the FBI background checkers to search the most current N-DEx file that has all this detailed information that was created after 9/11, well after the background check law came into effect.

The FBI has admitted, it would have prevented Dylann Roof from buying a gun and, I suspect, many of the other people who have carried out these horrific shootings in recent years.

It will hopefully garner the bipartisan support necessary to actually become law and fix the underlying problem.

Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Show 8 more

Bill Text

Latest available legislative text

Reading Mode

Raw Text PDF XML

Introduced in HouseIssued January 3, 2019

116th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 57

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 3, 2019

Ms. Jackson Lee introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security

A BILL

To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to conduct a study on the feasibility of establishing a Civilian Cyber Defense National Resource in the Department of Homeland Security.

Short title

This Act may be cited as the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity Asset Protection of Infrastructure under Terrorist Attack Logistical Structure Act or the CAPITALS Act.

Study on establishment of Department of Homeland Security Civilian Cyber Defense National Resource

(a)

Study

The Secretary of Homeland Security shall conduct a study on the feasibility of establishing a Department of Homeland Security Civilian Cyber Defense National Resource. In carrying out such study, the Secretary may consult with the Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of Defense.

(b)

Contents

The study required under subsection (a) shall include an analysis of—

(1)

the cost of creating a Civilian Cyber Defense National Resource in the Department of Homeland Security;

(2)

the number of persons who would be needed to defend the critical infrastructure of the United States from a cyber attack or manmade intentional or unintentional catastrophic incident;

(3)

the sources of potential members of such a Civilian Cyber Defense National Reserve, including industry, academic institutions, research facilities, and Federal contractors;

(4)

which elements of the Department would be best equipped to recruit, train, and manage such a Civilian Cyber Defense National Resource;

(5)

the criteria required for persons to serve in such a Civilian Cyber Defense National Resource;

(6)

the resources that could be pre-positioned and training instilled to assure the effectiveness and responsiveness of such a Civilian Cyber Defense National Resource in the case of an incident that disrupts communications in a region or area;

(7)

the minimum requirements for consideration for inclusion in such a Civilian Cyber Defense National Resource;

(8)

in the case that potential recruits for such a Civilian Cyber Defense National Resource are predominantly individuals without military, intelligence, law enforcement, or government work experience, the likely impact of such lack of experience on the effectiveness of a Civilian Cyber Defense National Resource;

(9)

the recruitment and vetting costs for such a Civilian Cyber Defense National Resource;

(10)

the frequency of cyber defense and unit cohesion training necessary for maintaining such a Civilian Cyber Defense National Resource;

(11)

how well Department personnel would be able to be adapted for use in creating command and control systems and protocols for a Civilian Cyber Defense National Resource;

(12)

the logistics of allowing governors to make requests of the Secretary of Homeland Security to use the Civilian Cyber Defense National Resource in States during times of cyber emergency;

(13)

the advantages and disadvantages of creating a Civilian Cyber Defense National Resource on the cybersecurity of the United States; and

(14)

whether a resource trained to defend the networks of the United States in the event of a major attack or natural or manmade disaster will benefit overall efforts to defend the interests of the United States.

(c)

Report

(1)

Submission

Not later than 240 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate a report containing the results of the study required under subsection (a).

(2)

Form

The report required under paragraph (1) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.