Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise today in hosting a Special Order on the Second Amendment, which is both near and dear to my heart and which is also near and dear to the many millions of Americans who cherish their rights and freedoms.

The Second Amendment says: ``A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.''

Though it brings me great joy to talk at length about the Second Amendment and the foresight our Founding Fathers had to enshrine this God-given right into the U.S. Constitution, I regret that lawmakers today must still rise to defend it, a matter that was settled 230 years ago.

We must still do this because the Second Amendment is, again, under direct and constant attack from not just gun control activist groups and the left, but now from our very own government within the executive branch.

The Founding Fathers enumerated our right to keep and bear arms in the Bill of Rights to ensure the people had the ability to protect themselves from a treacherous government that sought tyranny over democracy.

We know, Madam Speaker, and our Founding Fathers knew as well, that the first step toward tyranny is to disarm the citizenry.

The irony is not lost on me that the Democrats in control today are trying to do everything they can to gain power and keep power through rule changes and enacting sweeping laws that will forever tilt the scales of that power in their favor.

It was announced just this past week that Republicans and Democrats were able to strike a deal on an infrastructure plan which was heralded as great news and no easy feat in this partisan body. But then the news broke that the Democrats wanted to add to the bipartisan agreement a vast human infrastructure proposal. What is human infrastructure?

So now infrastructure becomes redefined to be anything they want it to be. So if you cannot get something done legitimately via legislation because you don't have the votes, then the new tactic is to accomplish it by redefinition. Just redefine the meaning of the word. So when does this act of redefining everything as we know it stop?

Madam Speaker, I fear that it won't, and I see that to be true when it comes to attacks on the Second Amendment, as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms' newly proposed rules on the definition of a frame or receiver and on pistol stabilizing braces makes that abundantly clear. Through these proposed regulations, the administration is attempting to unilaterally redefine what constitutes a firearm under Federal law and in doing so, restrict the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

In some cases, the courts have not ruled in ATF's way, so ATF wants to change the rules, so the courts have to

abide by new regulations more favorable to them. The ATF wants to increase their influence and authority and do it by edict, making it harder on law-abiding citizens to own firearms. They want a new definition for a firearm, one that will greatly expand its meaning and give ATF immense additional authority.

It was Congress who created the law that defines a firearm. ATF does not have that authority. We have a separation of powers issue here that ATF wants to ignore. It seems they don't want the representatives of the people to have a say. No, ATF wants to make the change themselves and thereby increase their own power. This is wrong thinking and it is dangerous.

Before I go further, let me pause for a second and review the legislative history of our key gun laws.

Congress passed the National Firearms Act, or NFA, in 1934; the Gun Control Act, or GCA, in 1968; and the Firearms Owners' Protection Act in 1986. While two of these acts have since been amended, with the GCA amending portions of the NFA, the current definition of the term ``firearm'' can be found in the GCA under 18 U.S.C. 921 and has been effectively used for over 50 years.

But the ATF has decided to expand its authority by proposing broad and arbitrary definitions of industry terms including some that are not even referenced in the definition section of the current law, including the terms, ``privately made firearm,'' and ``complete weapon.''

It is one thing for an agency to use its regulatory authority to clarify terms included in statute for purposes of implementation, but it is clear to me that the AFT has overstepped its authorities by legislating new terms not even referenced in the statute.

Under one of the proposed new regulations, a dummy receiver or an 80 percent lower would now be considered a firearm as it would be covered by the grossly expanded definition of a frame or receiver.

As you can see in the illustration right here, you see the difference between the two. The top is actually functional. The other one on the bottom is a solid block of metal with no ability to accept a firing mechanism, no hammer, no trigger, no selector. And so it is completely nonfunctional.

Now, let's look at those same two from the top-down view. Do you see the difference right here? The bottom one is a solid block of metal, but the top has been machined and has places for a trigger and a hammer and a selector. To make the bottom one work, you have to have the tools and the skill of a manufacturer.

So let's take a closer look at the dummy receiver, Madam Speaker, right here. This solid block of metal doesn't look like a firearm to me and it certainly doesn't work like one either. There is not even a hole right down here for a trigger. The ATF, in its own rule, noted that Congress recognized that regulation of all firearm parts was impractical back when this body was debating the GCA in 1968.

And in fact, Congress moved to make the regulation of the firearms industry more efficient and functional by striking language in the term ``firearm,'' that would have resulted in regulation of any part or parts of a firearm. Just like the bolt in the upper receiver assembly pictured right here, they are not firearms now. But ATF wants to make this a firearm.

But there is another aspect of this redefinition that will go completely unnoticed unless it is challenged, and that is taxation. The more pieces and parts the ATF can call firearms, the more excise tax they can collect. Let that sink in for a minute. Yes, this is another tax hidden in the price of a firearm.

Every firearm manufacturer pays a 10 or 11 percent excise tax to the ATF based on the invoice price when they sell a firearm to a dealer. So through this redefinition, the government is going to make more tax money on the backs of law-abiding citizens. And will Congress have passed a new law to increase taxes? No. The ATF will have created a new stream of tax revenue by simply changing the definition of a firearm frame or receiver. More taxation at the whim of ATF.

The Second Amendment recognizes the right endowed by our creator and codifies it into law. Taxation of a constitutional right is unconstitutional. But if this redefinition is allowed to stand, then this will only be the beginning of more and more taxation on citizens' gun rights. ATF knows that they cannot make the law more stringent without action by Congress, and they know that such support does not exist in Congress. So they try a flanking maneuver and end run to bypass the legislative branch.

They believe that they, along with gun control activists like David Chipman, can use the authority of the ATF, a law enforcement agency, as a political pawn to carry out their anti-Second Amendment agenda.

Madam Speaker, that is exactly what the ATF is doing, as we speak. One day you have a perfectly legal firearm or part, the next day you wake up and your firearm is no longer legal as defined by ATF. Such legality must be left to Congress to decide as it has done through the legislation I previously referenced; not decided by unelected Federal bureaucrats, bureaucrats that may soon be led by a radical gun control activist named David Chipman, unless my colleagues in the Senate oppose his nomination, and I trust they will.

I fear, Madam Speaker, that if my Senate counterparts do not thwart his nomination, we will have more redefining of words led by a partisan, radical gun control activist. I call it legislation by redefinition.

But this abuse of power can be stopped, Madam Speaker, and I invite you to join me in defending our rights by submitting comments directly to the ATF through the Federal Register notice. The two proposed rules I have referenced so far are available online for the public to read and have collectively received more than 180,000 comments so far.

One rule is called, ``Definition of `Frame or Receiver' and Identification of Firearms.'' The other rule is called, ``Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached `Stabilizing Braces'.''

Madam Speaker, I believe all Americans, especially gun owners, should inform themselves of the proposed changes and share their thoughts directly with the ATF through the public comment opportunity at www.regulations.gov. It is written right here.

The public comment period will last for just a few more weeks, and I would love to see the total number of submitted comments hit half a million for each proposed rule. I think every single member of this body agrees with my belief that criminals who misuse firearms and perpetuate violent crimes should be held accountable for their actions. And I also hope my colleagues would concur with my belief that law- abiding firearm owners should not be punished because of the illegal acts of a few who knowingly commit evil acts.

But rather than focusing their efforts on punishing criminals who use firearms in the commission of a crime, my Democratic colleagues have, instead, chosen again and again to slowly chip away at the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.

H.R. 8 and H.R. 1446 are prime examples of Democrat-led efforts to curtail Americans' Second Amendment rights. That is why I introduced H.R. 1787, the Ensuring SAFETY Act which would mandate the Federal Government respond to a background check in three calendar days and not allow them to delay background checks potentially indefinitely as happened during the pandemic.

Madam Speaker, I am thrilled to have so many of my colleagues join me in standing before you today to speak in defense of the Constitution and the Second Amendment.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson), our conference secretary, from the Eighth Congressional District.

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson) for introducing the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, a bill that I am proud to support as a cosponsor.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Nehls), my good friend from Texas' 22.

Madam Speaker, I thank Representative Nehls for his comments. He is truly a staunch supporter of law enforcement, as am I.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), from my home State, who represents Georgia's First District.

Madam Speaker, I thank Representative Carter for his inspiring words.

Madam Speaker, I ask this: If we grant an 18-year-old individual the right to cast a vote, which decides the fate of our Nation, and can ask them to serve in our Armed Forces, should we not also grant that individual the right to keep and bear arms, which is granted by the Constitution?

I am proud to support a bill introduced by my friend from Kentucky, Mr.

Massie, which would restore Second Amendment rights to individuals of voting age.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the good gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie).

Madam Speaker, I thank Representative Massie for those inspiring words.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the good gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas 21 for his passionate defense of our Second Amendment rights.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast).

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for those inspiring words. As a fellow combat veteran, I honor his service and I honor his speech this evening.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney), who sent out an amicus brief, and I was proud to cosponsor that brief. I thank her for defending our Second Amendment in that brief.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for her inspiring words and her work on this very important amicus brief.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert), a fiery defender of our Second Amendment because she knows exactly what is at stake.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Colorado's Third District for her excellent remarks and reminding us of the investigation that needs to be initiated on the purchase of a firearm by Hunter Biden, a 4473 that was not filled out correctly, which is a violation of law.

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry), representing Pennsylvania's 10th District.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from the great State of Pennsylvania for reminding us of how tremendously important the Second Amendment is.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good), my good friend and colleague who represents Virginia's Fifth District.

Madam Speaker, I thank the good gentleman and my good friend, Representative Good from Virginia, for his inspiring words.

As previously noted, Madam Speaker, the Biden administration has issued a proposed rule that would misinterpret the law and criminalize pistols with stabilizing braces. My friend from Virginia, Mr. Good, has introduced legislation to right this wrong and provide clear and accurate definitions for both rifles and pistols to avoid infringing on individuals' Second Amendment rights, and that is H.R. 3823.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Moore), my good friend from Alabama's Second District.

Madam Speaker, I thank the good gentleman from Alabama for those inspiring remarks.

I want to talk about privately-made firearms, which I briefly referenced in my introductory remarks.

Undeniably, the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms, has been fundamental to the freedom and security of our Nation since it was first founded in 1776. It is the teeth behind so many of the other rights and liberties we enjoy.

We know this to be true, because history has shown us that when the right to keep and bear arms falls, then the right of free speech and of the free press falls immediately after.

From our very beginning until today, for almost 250 years, people have always been able to build their own firearms. But that right is at risk, considering the White House's gun control agenda.

Under the Gun Control Act of 1968, commercial firearm manufacturers, importers, firearm distributors, and retail firearm dealers had to get Federal Government licenses in order to continue to operate their businesses. Along with those licenses came record-keeping requirements and compliance inspections to ensure they followed the new laws and regulations. This effectively put almost all firearm manufacturers and importers under the direct control of the Federal Government.

History also tells us, Madam Speaker, that after registration comes confiscation. We saw it happen in Russia after the 1917 Communist revolution; in Nazi Germany in 1938; in Australia in 1996; and most recently, in New Zealand in 2019.

In those countries, national registration led to eventual confiscation. Now the ATF wants even privately made firearms under their total control. To make component parts like upper housing and slides, those parts that can hold a firing pin or a bolt or a bolt carrier, to make those simple parts into a serialized firearm will have a chilling effect on privately made firearms.

In fact, it could completely eliminate privately made firearms, finally placing all manufacture of firearms under complete government control. Those fears are genuinely based, and we see that today with ATF trying to legislate by redefining the meaning of words or creating new ones that don't even exist in the written law.

As I noted earlier in the hour, Madam Speaker, I share the passion of my Democrat colleagues in keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals. But in achieving that shared goal, we cannot trample on the Second Amendment rights of citizens.

If the ATF succeeds in pushing these new definitions across the finish line, Madam Speaker, I fear that we will be opening the floodgates to allowing the agency to regulate our God-given Second Amendment rights right out of existence.

I don't plan to allow that to happen. Not on my watch, Madam Speaker. I don't think my colleagues who filled these seats earlier plan to allow that to happen either.

Together, with the support of the American people, we will never give one inch in the defense of the Second Amendment.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Mann), my good friend who represents Kansas' First District and introduced H.R. 1758, the Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act of 2021.

Madam Speaker, while any infringement of our Second Amendment rights is unconstitutional, policymakers have imposed even stricter regulations on some types of firearms, particularly short- barreled rifles. I truly appreciate my friend from Kansas' First District correcting this by introducing the Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act of 2021, which will accurately classify short- barreled rifles as semiautomatic rifles, as they should be. They should be semiautomatic rifles and only semiautomatic rifles and regulated as such.

Madam Speaker, I thank you for affording my colleagues and me the opportunity to stand before you today in defense of the Second Amendment and to highlight commonsense, conservative-led proposals to protect and preserve our rights.

Madam Speaker, I thank each of my colleagues for their participation this evening. Their respective constituents should be proud to have such staunch defenders of the Second Amendment representing them in the people's House.

Though several of my colleagues who have introduced proposals could not join us tonight, the American people should know that the solutions highlighted in the last hour are not exhaustive of our efforts to restore, protect, and preserve our God-given right to keep and bear arms. Rather, the solutions presented tonight are just the tip of the iceberg.

Madam Speaker, I again reiterate to you my sincere hope that the American people will take the opportunity to share their thoughts with the ATF on the two proposed regulations that I mentioned, as you can see on this board right here, as they have the potential to upend not only the firearms manufacturing industry but also the legality of guns in homes across the country as we know it.

My constituents sent me to Congress to do everything in my power to protect and uphold the Constitution, and I plan to do just that so long as they entrust me with their voting card.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).

Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker indicated that you have to ask the government to exercise your constitutional right. That is the problem. What happened in Charleston was terrible, it was wrong, and wrong as wrong can be. But this bill is not going to stop--the FBI had 2 months. It didn't do it. It didn't stop this guy. They had 2 months.

What this bill does is shift the burden. It takes it from 3 days to 10 days, and the burden now becomes on the American citizen to be able to exercise their constitutional right. That is not what the Second Amendment is supposed to be about. Unfortunately, it is where the Democrats want to take our country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Cawthorn).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins).

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

Mr. Speaker, the FBI tells us, in a 4-year time period, 18,000 people who exercised their Second Amendment liberties to get a firearm who were denied got that reversed. Those are just the ones who went there and said, ``You know what, you guys screwed up. It is not really me.'' They had to work it out.

Mr. Speaker, 18,000 times, the system screwed up. In 2017, over 112,000 people were denied, but only 12 people were prosecuted, which means that, most likely, thousands of law-abiding people were falsely denied their right to exercise their Second Amendment liberty.

Now what do Democrats want to do? They want to say: Wait a minute. That all happened in a 3-day time period. We are going to extend that for 10 days because we know the government bureaucracy will get so much better in 10 days. We know it will work out if we just give them more time to screw up more things.

That is what is going to happen. Oh, by the way, that single lady who needs to protect herself, she is going to have to wait longer now for a system that had this many screwups to get the firearms she needs to exercise her Second Amendment liberties to protect herself and her family. That is what this legislation does.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the dean of the House.

Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker used the term ``reasonable.'' This legislation shifts the burden, so you are now telling an American citizen the burden is on you to exercise your Second Amendment liberties. They deny the background check, deny you your ability to purchase a firearm, and the burden is on you.

Mr. Speaker, I would think that a professor of law would understand that you don't shift the burden when you are talking about a fundamental liberty that we enjoy under the Constitution. It doesn't seem reasonable at all to me.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Clyde).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cline).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

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

Earlier, we had a couple of the folks who spoke on our side. Earlier they said the Second Amendment is right next to the First because it is pretty darn important. I think some of our folks said that.

But it struck me that, you know what, I don't know that the other side actually cares all that much about the First Amendment.

Think about what has happened this past year. Democrats have told Americans they can't go to church, can't go to work, can't go to school, can't go to a loved one's funeral.

Of course, the rules never apply to them. We had a Governor of one of our largest States--a Governor of our largest State--out at a 5-star restaurant, having dinner with friends and lobbyists at the same time he is telling folks in his State that they can't even have Thanksgiving dinner with their family.

We see the attack on free speech. I mean, just to laugh at this whole cancel culture phenomena. First it was Kermit the Frog and the Muppets, then it was Dr. Seuss. I think yesterday it was cartoon characters from the Looney Tunes. Tack on your right to speak, specifically to speak in any type of political nature.

We have had Democrat Members of Congress, Mr. Speaker, send a letter to carriers, asking those carriers not to have certain news networks on their system. That is frightening. You talk about chilling speech. That is as scary as it gets--just because they don't like what is being said on certain news networks? Scary.

And now they are coming after your Second Amendment liberties as well. I mean, think about your First Amendment rights, your right to practice your faith, your right to assemble, your right to petition your government, freedom of the press, freedom of speech. And then the very next right the Founders mention, your Second Amendment liberties, they are coming after that, too.

It wasn't enough to go after your right to practice your faith. It wasn't enough to go after your right to assemble and be with people you wanted. Think about some of the things we saw this year. We had Democrat leaders in States telling Americans you had to be in your home at a certain time with curfews. You had to be in your home by 10.

We had another State say, when you are in your home, you have to wear a mask. And then we had States say, well, when you are in your home, you don't have to wear a mask because you are not allowed to have anybody over.

Government was limiting your First Amendment right to practice your religion, your First Amendment right to assemble. And now they are coming after your First Amendment right to speak and speak in a political nature. And here we are today, coming after your Second Amendment liberties.

The Democratic Party is the party that says defund the police, open the border, attack people's Second Amendment rights to defend themselves while they are defunding the police and opening the border, and all the while they are undermining American's First Amendment liberties as well.

This should frighten everyone.

This should frighten everyone. This should frighten everyone wherever they want to go. It is scary. I certainly hope we defeat both of these bills today when they are offered.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins).

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

I oppose both bills and the amendments for all the reasons we have stated today. I think my colleague from Pennsylvania said it best. We are now going to have to wait 10 days to exercise your Second Amendment rights.

One of the previous speakers, Madam Speaker, on the Democrat side said that felons don't get guns. They are felons. They are not going to follow the law.

We all know what this is. This is going to make it more difficult for law-abiding Americans to exercise a fundamental liberty guaranteed in the United States Constitution, the second right they have, the Second Amendment to the Constitution. It is going to make it more difficult for them to exercise their fundamental liberty. That is what this is about.

The FBI had 2 months in the Charleston situation to get it right. They couldn't. Somehow we think now extending it from 3 days to 10 days, a system that messed up as much as it has, somehow that is going to help, and then shifting the burden so that if this system that has falsely denied people their right to purchase a firearm, time and time again, if the system does it again, the burden is on you.

Since when do we ever do that? When are you presumed guilty by the government? Only now. Only now are you presumed guilty. You are not going to be able to exercise your rights.

Those are our concerns with both of these bills and the amendments that are in front of us today.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 188, I call up the bill (H.R. 1446) to amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to strengthen the background check procedures to be followed before a Federal firearms licensee may transfer a firearm to a person who is not such a licensee, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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. 1446.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1446, the Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2021, is a critical bill to provide law enforcement the necessary time to keep firearms out of the hands of those who are not legally eligible to own them.

The 2015 massacre at Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, which killed nine innocent people, stands as a tragic reminder of how current background check laws sometimes fall short.

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 the background check system, commonly called NICS, after 3 business days.

This is the case even if the system has not indicated that the person has actually passed the background check. Often, we refer to this as a default proceed transaction.

While 96 percent of background checks are processed within 3 business days, an analysis of FBI data showed that over 35,000 guns were transferred to prohibited purchasers between 2008

and 2017 because of the default proceed rule.

On average, over the course of the last decade, 10 prohibited individuals have been able to purchase guns at licensed firearms dealers through the default proceed rule every single day.

The cases in which there is a delay are the very cases that ought to be carefully investigated.

If NICS is unable to return an instant determination--and especially if there is no report after 3 days--there is cause for concern. There may be a good reason that these individuals should not own firearms, but the current system allows the transfer nonetheless.

Under this legislation, as under current law, a sale may proceed immediately once a background check clears a purchaser, which is the case in the vast majority of instances.

This bill provides, however, that for checks taking longer to complete, the FBI will have 10 business days for the initial background check investigation period. If the check is not completed during this time, an individual may submit a petition for expedited review. If a petition is submitted, unless NICS provides an answer within the next 10 business days, either clearing the transaction or stopping it, a gun dealer has the discretion to complete the sale and transfer the firearm.

We must ensure that firearms transfers are lawful, and in some instances, that requires additional time. That is why H.R. 1446 is needed, to prevent the sale of firearms to prohibited individuals by providing the FBI with additional time to complete background checks.

H.R. 1446 is a sensible and necessary approach to closing a dangerous loophole, and I commend our colleague, Congressman Jim Clyburn, the distinguished Democratic whip, for introducing this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the sponsor of this legislation, and the distinguished majority whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from South Carolina.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Kelly).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

I have never heard such pernicious nonsense as we have heard today from our Republican friends.

They say that this legislation will violate gun rights. But all this legislation does is close a dangerous loophole that puts weapons in the hands of individuals who should not legally be permitted to purchase them merely because the FBI is not able to complete the background check in time.

The FBI under this legislation will have 10 days maybe instead of 3 days to complete the background check and decide whether someone is too dangerous to have access to guns. That is all this legislation does.

To say that it infringes on the Second Amendment, Mr. Raskin pointed out that Justice Scalia in the Heller decision upheld this kind of legislation.

So stop with the nonsense, pass this legislation, and make the American people safe.

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

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 188, I offer amendments en bloc.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds.

Madam Speaker, the amendments contained in this en bloc amendment include important changes to the bill that will provide Congress additional information to inform our future decisionmaking.

Representative Burgess' amendment would require reporting to Congress on the number of NICS denials referred for investigation after a firearm was sold to a person who was later found to be ineligible.

Representative Levin's amendment adds State-level data tracking which will facilitate our review of which State gun safety measures have been effective and which should be considered on the Federal level.

Representative McBath's amendment would require critical reporting on the impact of the bill on victims of domestic abuse.

Lastly, Representative Neguse's amendment makes data available to the public regarding NICS denials.

These are valuable additions to H.R. 1446.

Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to support them, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Levin).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Clarke).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).

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

Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Our Republican friends insist on misreading the bill. They insist on talking about things that aren't in the bill.

The bill takes away the rights of nobody except those who have threatened their wives, threatened their former wives, threatened other people in the community. Those are all the people who are affected.

Yes, we extend the NICS system from 3 days to 10 days. That means that if the NICS system hasn't reported back within 3 days, the FBI gets up to 10 days. At the end of 10 days, they can't stop you from getting a weapon unless the records show that you are not entitled to get the weapon because you are a danger to the community. That is what this bill does.

To misread it and say it gives any rights to felons, or to gun buyers, or to people who are criminals because they disobey the law, of course people who disobey the law are criminals. But that is not what the bill deals with.

The bill simply says that it effectuates a system that says that people who are threats to the community may not get guns. And it does not limit the time beyond 10 days to make that decision.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want us to be very quiet in this Chamber, almost to the extent of hearing a pin drop. That is what happens when you are in prayer: Muslims, Catholics, those of the Jewish faith, Christians.

Prayer is the most sacred moment in many faiths, in all faiths.

Imagine that moment in Mother Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, friends of ours across the Nation. That weekday prayer service for some is a lifeline for their survival. They are huddled in prayer, maybe taking care of what they call a broken heart, a bad day at the office, a need to take care of a wayward child, and in comes this young man that they saw only as a person in need of prayer.

That is a song we sing. That we are in need of prayer. Just imagine this pristine, white, old church symbolizing the freedom of slaves, just imagine these precious souls who were doing nothing but praying.

I want to acknowledge the pain that Whip Clyburn experienced. I saw him in the aftermath of those days. These were not just his fellow Americans, they were his neighbors and his friends and interns.

How many remember when the commander in healing, the commander of bringing people together, President Obama, sang the song Amazing Grace?

That is what life in the midst of a storm is about, and that is what we are in, in the proliferation of guns.

And my friends on the other side keep throwing darts and bombs about undermining the Second Amendment. I say it again. From the early stages of the Founding Fathers in the Bill of Rights, gun usage in America was regulated. The Heller case does not deny regulation. In fact, there are aspects that allow it.

So this is a legitimate regulation for safety, not control. Because Dylann, who went to a gun store and manipulated a gun owner to go and give him the gun after 3 days because there was something funny about his information, this will save lives. Ten days is not too long to stop the loss of life and the bloodshed that was in Mother Emanuel.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 1446 to save lives.

Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for his leadership, and I thank Whip Clyburn for letting us fix the problem of criminals getting guns.

Do my friends on the other side of the aisle not understand that Dylann Roof had a criminal background? What happened is that the storekeeper, in essence, violated the law. He viewed it as not violating the law because, after 3 days, there was no answer.

Dylann Roof took a gun and became a mass shooter in America. Yes, if he had not gotten a gun illegally, these souls would be alive today.

In 2018, there were 355 mass shootings. We have evidence that people with guns have not stopped a mass shooting. So if there was a person armed with a gun inside Mother Emanuel praying with a gun, I don't believe that lives could have been saved.

What I do know is that if this bill, H.R. 1446, had been in place, that would have allowed a 10-day window to be able to determine whether Dylann Roof needed to have a gun. It is a simple context, simple facts, and it should be done to save lives.

I rise in enthusiastic support of H.R. 1446. I thank Whip Clyburn for his long years of persistence. And our sympathy goes to those who lost their lives at Mother Emanuel in 2015.

We have come now to be able to say no, criminals should not have guns, and we should have a NICS system that allowed the full review background check so that he could not have had a gun. What is wrong with that?

Are we interested in saving lives the right way?

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1446, the ``Enhanced Background Check Act of 2021,'' which strengthens the background check procedures federal firearms licensees or dealers follow before selling or transferring a firearm.

Under current law, firearms dealers are required to run a background check on prospective buyers using the NICS.

Over 90 percent of checks are completed within 90 seconds so 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.

After another 10-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.

Thus, 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.

Madam Speaker, the American people are demanding effective action to reduce, if not prevent altogether, 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 (CDC) and Prevention 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 was nearly one mass shooting per day in the United States--355 mass shootings in 2018.

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.

And 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 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 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.

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

Madam Speaker, enhancing the gun transfer background check system has consistently garnered broad public support, as high as 92 percent, because the American people know that the status quo is simply intolerable and action must be taken to reduce gun violence by keeping dangerous persons from obtaining deadly weapons.

That begins with passing H.R. 1446, the ``Enhanced Background Check Act of 2021,'' and I urge all members to join me in voting for its passage.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his great leadership of the Judiciary Committee. Thank you for bringing this important legislation to the floor, Mr. Nadler.

And, again, as an authority on the Constitution, you and I know that we do respect the right of the gentleman to have a gun. We just want to make sure that we are keeping people safe.

Mr. Speaker, the gun violence crisis in America is a challenge to the conscience of our country, one that demands that we act. We know what must be done. The solutions are clear. They have overwhelming bipartisan support across the country. These solutions will save lives.

That is why I am so pleased to rise on the floor to support Mr. Clyburn's legislation, H.R. 1446, the Enhanced Background Checks Act to ensure that universal background checks do save lives. He explained so clearly the purpose of his legislation. I associate myself with his remarks. I know how painful it is because he had friends in that church whom we have met families of since then.

I also rise to support H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of Mr. Mike Thompson. Mr. Thompson is a gun owner. He is a veteran. He respects the Second Amendment, and he is the chair of the Gun Violence Prevention Task Force. I thank him for his decades of leadership on background checks and for the perspective he brings, again, as a gun owner and a veteran and a hunter.

We all salute the extraordinary work of Mr. Clyburn, the leader of the Enhanced Background Checks Act, to close the Charleston loophole, and we respect him for the work he has done in his community to turn their agony into action, their pain into saving other people's lives.

I thank all the Members who have helped raise a drumbeat on these priorities, including our colleague, Representative Lucy McBath, who has been such an inspiration to all of us, bringing her great generosity of spirit in telling her story, sharing that story of Jordan with us.

Now, we also have a debt of gratitude to our former colleague, Gabby Giffords, who when she was having a neighborhood meeting, there was an attempt on her life. Her courage is an inspiration to the country. Her leadership to end gun violence is something that is so remarkable. Under her leadership and that of the Bradys, we were able to meet with survivors over time to try to pass legislation to make gun laws clear and better and really adjusting to the realities of technology.

Another colleague, Bobby Rush, lost his son to gun violence as well. So, again, we hear about the big events that take place, and they are horrible, but every day people lose their lives.

In fact, let me just see what the statistics are. Since 1994, when background checks were first created, I had the privilege of being here at that time and actually serving as a whip for the legislation. Our leader on the bill was Senator Schumer. Well, right then he was a Member of Congress, Chuck Schumer, on this legislation. Since 1994, when background checks were first created, the system has stopped more than 3 million dangerous people from getting firearms.

Every day, when background checks are used, they stop an estimated 170 felons, 50 domestic abusers, and nearly 20 fugitives from buying a gun. Every day, Mr. Speaker.

Yet, over the years, people have exploited and circumvented the system. Today, someone with a violent criminal record or a history of abuse can go to a gun show or go online or even to a stranger in person to purchase a firearm. No background check, no questions asked, all perfectly legal. It might be legal, but it is not perfect.

Even when a background check has been initiated, it is not always completed. That is what this legislation before us, Mr. Clyburn's bill, is about; the horrific case that enabled a hate crime at Mother Emanuel Church in Charleston in which nine innocent people were murdered while peacefully worshipping.

Eighty percent of firearms--because of gun shows, online sales and the rest--80 percent of firearms are sold or transferred without completed background checks.

So it is in that spirit that I come to the floor, but when I come to the floor, I bring with me the thoughts of the survivors who we meet with regularly. We have said to them, We are not stopping until the job is done.

We respect our Constitution, but we also say that the Constitution talks about well-regulated.

Again, these bills that we are talking about have bipartisan support by a vast majority of the American people; over 90 percent of the public, including more than 90 percent of gun-owning households. Most of these folks who own guns have passed background checks, they support background checks, and they are supported by dozens of leading law enforcement, veterans, local government, public health, and other groups.

For example, Mr. Speaker, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, representing the Nation's largest metropolitan law enforcement agencies writes: ``The lack of a background check for private sales and gun shows completely contradicts the purpose for which NICS was established--to keep guns out of the hands of those who do harm.''

For the benefit of those who don't know what NICS is, it is an important program. Mr. Thompson has been a champion in the funding of NICS. NICS is the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

Next, the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys states: ``H.R. 8 will help the background check system catch up with changes in technology and ensure that individuals who are prohibited from purchasing or possessing a gun cannot easily buy guns online.''

And the U.S. Conference of Mayors writes that H.R. 8 will ``make our cities safer and in no way compromise gun owners' rights.''

H.R. 8 is very important to us, and it is legislation that has broad support. It is called the Bipartisan Background Checks Act. That is Mr. Thompson's bill.

And this bill, H.R. 1446, Mr. Clyburn's bill is the Enhanced Background Checks Act. So everything I say about one bill applies to the other in terms of its purpose, in terms of its urgency, and in terms of its honoring our promise to the survivors and the families who have lost their loved ones to gun violence, that we are not going away until this legislation passes and that we will meet the challenge of the conscience of the country when it comes to the gun violence crisis in our country.

And I say that with gratitude to Representative Mike Thompson and our distinguished whip Mr. Clyburn for their leadership, their determination, their persistence, and soon, hopefully, their success in turning their legislation into law, so that we can keep our promises to the survivors, and also, that we can make the world safer for all children and all people in our country and throughout the world, as we are an example to the world.

I urge an ``aye'' vote on both of these bills.