PPP and Bank Fraud Enforcement Harmonization Act of 2022

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1153, I call up the bill (H.R. 7910) to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for an increased age limit on the purchase of certain firearms, prevent gun trafficking, modernize the prohibition on untraceable firearms, encourage the safe storage of firearms, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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. 7910.

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

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

Madam Speaker, our Nation has been through trying times these last few weeks as we have tried to process the mass shootings in Buffalo, Uvalde, Tulsa, and all too many other cities. Just this past weekend, we learned of yet another horrific incident in Philadelphia and yet more carnage in Tennessee, Arizona, Virginia, and South Carolina. And those are just the stories we saw in the news.

Day after day, we see more lives lost to gun violence in our schools, on our streets, in our houses of worship, and in our homes, touching every region of the country. And we hear the urgent calls from our constituents crying out for us to take action. Today, we heed that call.

H.R. 7910, the Protecting Our Kids Act, is comprehensive legislation to address the scourge of gun violence, a blight that killed nearly 45,000 Americans in 2020 alone.

It builds on the work of several of our colleagues, including:

Anthony Brown's Raise the Age Act, which would raise the lawful age to purchase an AR-15 styled semiautomatic assault rifle from 18 to 21 years old;

Robin Kelly's Prevent Gun Trafficking Act, which would establish new Federal offenses for gun trafficking and straw purchasing;

David Cicilline's Untraceable Firearms Act, which would ensure that ghost guns are subject to existing Federal firearms regulations;

A trio of gun storage proposals--Rosa DeLauro's Ethan's Law, Elissa Slotkin's Safe Guns, Safe Kids Act, and Sheila Jackson Lee's Kimberly Vaughan Firearms Safe Storage Act--which would establish storage regulations that keep guns out of the hands of children and award grants for firearm storage assistance programs;

Dina Titus' Closing the Bump Stock Loophole Act, which would build on existing regulations banning the manufacture, sale, or possession of bump stocks for civilian use;

And Ted Deutch's Keep Americans Safe Act, which would ban the sale, manufacture, and illegal possession of gun magazines that hold more than 15 rounds of ammunition.

I thank each of them for their contributions to this bill and for making this country safer for all Americans.

Madam Speaker, all of us in this Chamber were shaken by the images of parents in Uvalde standing in line to match their DNA to the remains of their 9- and 10-year-old children, parents who should be picking up their children from school right now but who, instead, are picking up the pieces of their lives shattered by this unimaginable loss.

But the question today is: Who among us will have the courage to do something about it? Who will be able to tell mothers and fathers that their children need not go to school in a fortress just to keep them safe? Who will be able to tell children that they did all they could today to ensure that their parents will return safely from the supermarket or their office or an evening out? Who will be able to tell their constituents that they stood with them and not with the gun lobby?

Americans are watching. They are begging us to protect them and their loved ones from gun violence. Who among us will answer their call?

I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this Protecting Our Kids Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), the cosponsor of the bill and a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), a cosponsor of the bill and the chairman of the Gun Violence Prevention Task Force.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an article dated May 31, 2022, from The New York Times titled ``California has America's Toughest Gun Laws, and They Work.''

[From the New York Times, May 31, 2022]

California Has America's Toughest Gun Laws, and They Work

(By Shawn Hubler)

The grotesque toll of gun violence is again being debated

in Congress. As Luis Ferre-Sadurni and I reported over the

long weekend, states are not holding their breath.

Particularly this state: In ways that have tended to be

underreported, California has significantly lowered gun

deaths, Dr. Garen J. Wintemute, an emergency room doctor and

longtime firearm violence researcher, told me this week.

``For the last 20, maybe even 25 years--except for the two

years of the pandemic, which have increased homicides and

suicides across the country--our rates of firearm violence

have trended downward,'' said Dr. Wintemute, who directs the

Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of

California, Davis, Medical Center in Sacramento. ``And this

has been at a time when most of the rates in the rest of the

country have gone up.''

California's rate of firearm mortality is among the

nation's lowest, with 8.5 gun deaths per 100,000 people in

2020, compared with 13.7 per 100,000 nationally and 14.2 per

100,000 in Texas, the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention has reported. And Californians are about 25

percent less likely to die in mass shootings, compared with

residents of other states, according to a recent Public

Policy Institute of California analysis.

I asked Dr. Wintemute how California is different. Here's a

lightly edited excerpt from our conversation, which took

place on Memorial Day after his emergency room shift:

Just a couple of weeks ago, California had a mass shooting.

By what measures are our policies a success?

You have to look at it on a population basis. We do have

more mass shootings in California, but we're also by far the

largest state. I looked a while ago at the rates of firearm

violence across the 21st century--homicide and suicide

together--and the rest of the country was up, but

California's rates were so far down that the average was

flat.

We always hear that nothing works, that even California's

strict gun laws are ineffective.

That's because we evaluate policies one at a time, in

isolation. The results for one policy might be mixed or even

negative. But what California has done over a number of

decades has been to enact a whole bundle of policies that I

think work in synergy, to measurable effect.

It sounds like the ``Swiss cheese model'' public health

experts have used to address Covid.

Yes. The idea is to prevent the holes in the policies from

lining up. But if we rank the states, California's rate of

firearm violence ranks 29th out of 50 states for homicides

and 44th for suicides.

Can you share some examples?

California has done a lot to prevent high-risk people from

purchasing firearms. We've broadened the criteria for keeping

guns out of the hands of people who pose a danger to

themselves or others due to mental illness. If you're

convicted of a violent misdemeanor in California, you can't

have a gun for the next 10 years; that offense has to be a

felony in most states.

We require background checks, and not just from licensed

retailers; in most states, purchases from private parties

require no background checks or record keeping of any kind.

We have a system, that we're evaluating now, for getting guns

back from ``prohibited persons''--people who have been

convicted of violent crimes or who are facing domestic

violence restraining orders. And we enforce these policies,

unlike a lot of other states.

What else?

In the early 1990s, cheap handguns--``Saturday Night

Specials''--were almost entirely manufactured around Los

Angeles. It was a few companies making upward of 800,000

cheap handguns a year. So the state imposed standards for

design and safety. One of the companies has since gone to

Nevada. The rest went belly-up and no one else has come in to

fill the gap.

What about gaps?

Every time California sets a new standard, the gun industry

tries to outwit it. Unregulated ghost guns have become

immensely popular here, precisely because we're such a

tightly regulated market. And the state program to recover

guns from prohibited people has never had the level of

funding it needs to do the whole job--there are only about 40

trained agents for the whole state and a backlog of at least

10,000 people whose guns need to be taken.

Overall, what could the rest of the country learn from

California?

The lower the prevalence of ownership, the lower the rate

of firearm violence--that's been one of the most robust

research findings for decades. Rates of gun ownership are

lower here, in part because of this bundle of state measures.

In the United States overall, something like 25 percent to 30

percent of individuals own guns. In California, it's about 15

percent to 18 percent.

Madam Speaker, the evidence doesn't lie. California's rate of firearm mortality is among the Nation's lowest, with 8.5 gun deaths per 100,000 people in 2020, compared with 13.7 per 100,000 nationally and 14.2 per 100,000 in Texas. Gun safety laws work. It is that simple.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lieu), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Demings), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Correa), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Garcia), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, how much time remains on each side.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean), the vice chair of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath), a member of the Judiciary Committee who knows the tragedy of gun violence personally.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Escobar), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Jones), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Kelly).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the distinguished chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Brown).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Manning).

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 10 seconds to the gentlewoman.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a May 27, 2022, piece from CNN titled ``States with weaker gun laws have higher rates of firearm related homicides and suicides, study finds.''

[From CNN, May 27, 2022]

States With Weaker Gun Laws Have Higher Rates of Firearm Related

Homicides and Suicides, Study Finds

(By Emma Tucker and Priya Krishnakumar)

A new study published Thursday by a leading non-profit

organization that focuses on gun violence prevention found

that there is a direct correlation in states with weaker gun

laws and higher rates of gun deaths, including homicides,

suicides and accidental killings.

The study by Everytown for Gun Safety determined that

California had the strongest gun laws in the country. Hawaii

topped the list with the lowest rate of gun deaths in the

country while Mississippi led the country with both the

weakest gun laws and highest rate of gun deaths.

``What this project does, is show what we've been saying

for years: Gun laws save lives,'' said Nick Suplina, senior

vice president of law and policy at Everytown for Gun Safety

Support Fund. ``We think this is going to be a really

important tool for lawmakers, reporters and advocates that

have been looking for the kind of visual tool that can make

that case clearly.''

To compile its list, the group used data from the Centers

for Disease Control and Prevention, looked at each state's

rate of gun deaths in 2020 and compared those rates with 50

policies that they say are scientifically proven to be

effective in preventing gun violence, Suplina said.

The research team then weighed the list of gun safety

policies based on their efficacy, ranked each state on its

implementation of those policies and compared that score with

the rates of gun deaths in each state, he said.

The CDC's data includes homicides, accidental killings and

suicides committed by guns. According to the CDC, over 45,000

people in the United States were killed with a firearm in

2020--more than half died by suicide.

The analysis, first reported by CNN, put California at the

top of the list for gun law strength--a composite score of

84.5 out of 100, with one of the lowest rates of gun deaths

per 100,000 residents, at 8.5 out of 30 and below the

national average of 13.6. Hawaii has the lowest rate of gun

deaths in the country with the second strongest gun law

score. It also has the lowest rate of gun ownership, with

firearms in 9 percent of households, the data shows.

As state legislatures begin to convene for their 2022

legislative sessions, lawmakers will consider a breadth of

bills that either loosen or expand gun protections across

various states.

``I have seen firsthand in California that the work we have

done to strengthen gun laws has been both life-saving and

effective,'' said Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA). chair of the

House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force. ``Gun laws work,

and we need them across the board to ensure that felons,

domestic abusers, and those with mental health issues can't

simply go to the next state over to circumvent the very laws

meant to keep guns out of their hands.''

CNN has reached out to the National Rifle Association (NRA)

to comment on the research, but it declined to do so before

seeing the data.

Mississippi has the weakest gun laws with a score of 3 out

of 100 and has the highest rate of gun deaths per 100,000

residents--28.6 out of 30, the research shows.

Massachusetts has adopted 37 of the 50 policies and has the

second-lowest rate of

gun deaths, while Missouri has only eight of the gun safety

policies and the fourth highest rate of gun deaths in the US.

Louisiana and Wyoming are among the top five states with the

highest gun deaths and the weakest gun safety laws.

``Lawmakers in the states at the bottom can't pretend to be

ignorant about the importance of gun laws after looking at

this report,'' said Shannon Watts, the founder of Moms Demand

Action, which has been fighting for gun safety measures since

the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Connecticut

that killed 20 children and six educators.

Mother and activist DeAndra Dycus said the gun violence

problem in Indianapolis is ``tearing our community apart.''

Nearly eight years ago, her 13-year-old son, DeAndre

``Dre'' Knox, was shot in the back left side of his head at a

birthday party in Indianapolis when shots were fired during a

confrontation between two boys. DeAndre, now 21, survived

after being on life support for several days, Dycus said, and

he currently lives in a facility with non-verbal quadriplegic

paralysis.

``As a mother, when I look at him, I see everything that

was taken away,'' Dycus said. ``My son was a dreamer. He was

a scholar. He was on this road to being something great.''

``But on the flip side, I see this little boy who has made

such an impact, not just on our city but our country, as it

pertains to what it looks like to survive,'' she said. ``Dre

has embodied that.''

Everytown designated a list of five foundational laws that

have proven to be the most effective in lowering gun violence

rates. These include requirements for a background check and/

or permits to purchase handguns; a permit to carry concealed

guns in public; the secure storage of firearms; the rejection

of `Stand Your Ground' laws; and the enactment of `extreme

risk' laws that temporarily remove a person's access to

firearms when there is evidence that they pose a serious risk

to themselves or others, according to Everytown.

Last year, several conservative states--such as Texas,

Iowa, Tennessee, Montana, Utah and Wyoming--passed

legislation allowing some form of permitless carry as

President Joe Biden pushed forward executive actions to

address gun violence following several high-profile mass

shootings.

In Texas, the controversial ``constitutional carry''

legislation went into effect in September that allows most

Texans who legally own a firearm to carry it openly in public

without obtaining a permit or training.

Supporters of the bill have argued that by removing the

licensing requirement they are removing an ``artificial

barrier'' to residents' right to bear arms under the

Constitution and ensuring more Texans have access to ``the

protection of themselves or their families'' in public. But

law enforcement officials and experts have expressed concerns

that the open carrying of firearms makes it more difficult

for police to quell violence.

``As we've seen gun extremism continue to rise in this

country, we've also seen people who open carry start out at

marches and rallies and then show up in elected officials'

homes, in polling places, statehouses and then on January 6th

at the US Capitol,'' Watts said.

According to Watts, the shooting in a Michigan high school

in December that killed four students is a ``textbook

example'' of why laws that require the secure storage of

firearms are essential to gun safety.

The alleged gunman in that shooting, 15-year-old Ethan

Crumbley, is accused of fatally shooting four classmates and

wounding several others on November 30. His parents were

charged with four counts of involuntary manslaughter in the

same incident. All three have pleaded not guilty.

Prosecutors allege that James Crumbley, the father of the

suspected shooter, bought the gun used in the shooting four

days earlier. The incident prompted outrage over Ethan's

alleged accessibility to the gun, arguing that the shooting

could have been prevented.

Only 23 states currently have some semblance of a secure

storage requirement, Watts said.

Last year, Everytown successfully worked to pass secure

storage laws in Maine, Colorado, and Oregon, among others,

according to Watts.

During this year's legislative session, Watts said the

organization will work with lawmakers in hopes of passing

such laws in at least 14 states. States such as California,

Michigan and New Jersey are working on first-of-its kind

legislation that requires parents to be notified about secure

storage.

Everytown's research shows that 21 of the country's states

have rejected Stand Your Ground laws, which allow individuals

to use deadly force in public as self-defense even if they

can safely walk away from the situation.

Despite strong gun laws, some states still feel the effects

of being close to a state with more lax regulations. For

example, Illinois has the sixth-strongest gun safety laws in

the country, but its neighboring state of Indiana has much

weaker gun laws, Suplina says.

According to Suplina, this could explain why such a high

number of guns purchased in Indiana have ended up in Chicago.

Last year, the U.S. Department of Justice charged six

Indianapolis residents related to the straw purchasing of

firearms. Prosecutors said more than 20 of the guns were

recovered in Chicago after being used in violent crimes,

including murder.

Gun violence overall has risen during the pandemic. More

than two-thirds of the country's 40 most populous cities saw

more homicides last year than in 2020, and most of them were

a result of gun violence, according to a CNN analysis of

police department data. For many cities, the elevated rates

of homicide continued into 2021.

While experts say the reasons for the rise in homicides are

varied, murders are increasingly carried out with guns. The

increase in gun violence was underscored in the FBI's 2020

Uniform Crime Report, which stated that about 77 percent of

reported murders in 2020 were committed with a gun, up from

74 percent in 2019. The agency reported that the number of

homicides increased by nearly 30 percent from 2019, the

largest single-year jump the agency has recorded. There is no

federal database of gun sales, but other independent surveys

have found that gun sales have soared during the Covid-19

pandemic.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Ms. Sherrill).

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

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time each side has remaining?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis).

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

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

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

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

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

Too many cities in this country have become a shorthand for mass shooting: Newtown, San Bernardino, Charleston, Las Vegas, Parkland, Santa Fe, El Paso, Buffalo, Uvalde. The list goes on.

How many more communities must be visited by tragedy before we take action?

How many more parents need to bury their own children because an 18- year old with an AR-15 assault rifle stormed into their school?

How many more children must grow up without a parent because a high- capacity magazine allowed a shooter to spray dozens of bullets through a supermarket?

Let today be the day that we begin to end this cycle of gun violence and we take meaningful action to protect our communities and, most of all, to protect our kids.

You know, the Republicans tell us that we want to defund the police. We

don't want to defund the police. President Biden just said the other day we want to fund the police.

They want to defund the police. They want to disarm the police. What chance does a policeman, with a regular service revolver, have against someone with an AR-15 assault rifle? None at all.

They want to make sure that our police have no chance at all to resist the dishonest people who use weapons of war because weapons of war overwhelm whatever any policeman may have. That is the problem here.

The problem here is that they want to defund--or I shouldn't say defund. They want to disarm our police, compared to the crooks and the murderers who have the weapons of war which can outweigh the service revolvers that any police officer will have.

So we want to protect the police officers. We want them to not be outgunned by the murderers. That is where we are. That is what this bill does. That is perhaps why they are afraid of this bill.

But we must pass this bill to save our police officers, to save our communities, to save our children.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

This is an emotional debate. It is an emotional debate because we lose, on a daily basis, family members, neighbors, friends, and fellow citizens to a bullet or multiple bullets--killed by gun.

I do not subscribe to the theory that some promote that the more guns we have, the safer we will be. I believe that is somewhat like the O.K. Corral theory that if you have a faster gun, then you will be safe. Eventually,

somebody will have a faster, bigger, and more surprising gun than we.

Madam Speaker, like all Americans, I found the mass shooting at Uvalde, Texas, heart-wrenching, tragic, and unacceptable. Although the news was excruciating to watch, it was anything but surprising given our history with deadly firearms. Sadly, we didn't even have time to mourn the 19 children and two teachers who were killed in Uvalde before news broke of another mass shooting--over and over and over and over and over and over again.

At some point these statistics have to move us to respond in an effective way. My friend from North Carolina suggested hardening the schools. We have hardened this Chamber over the objections of some when we know that no gun should be in this Capitol other than those possessed by law enforcement, Capitol Police.

According to the nonpartisan Gun Violence Archive, there have been as many as 33 mass gun violence incidents in the 14 days since the attack on Robb Elementary. We have more guns in this country than any other nation on Earth. The Second Amendment guarantees that we have a right to a gun, but the Supreme Court in Heller said: But there are limitations to that right.

I strongly support an individual American's right to have a gun in his or her home--their home--to protect themselves and their business. But the Court said: Be reasonable.

In the past week alone, 7 days, we have seen mass shootings in Chattanooga, Tennessee, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Tulsa, Oklahoma. Not even 10 days before the shooting in Robb Elementary, a domestic terrorist killed 13 people in a grocery store in Buffalo, New York.

In every corner of this country, Americans are begging--begging-- Congress to protect our kids and our people. Many of us like to say, This is the people's House.

The people are speaking to us and crying out for action.

A gentleman who spoke before me said something about saying prayers. I believe in prayer. But I also believe the admonition that John Kennedy said when he said: ``Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on Earth, God's work must truly be our own.''

Today, in this House--the people's House--we need to act to protect the people.

Madam Speaker, I want to direct your attention to this chart again. Look at the numbers--hundreds of deaths. In addition to the unconscionable trauma these attacks inflicted on the parents, children, wives, husbands, brothers, sisters, and other loved ones of the victims, they have one thing in common: the perpetrator got the gun legally.

In Tulsa, Oklahoma, the perpetrator got the gun approximately 3 hours before he shot Dr. Phillips. He was filled, obviously, with passion, hate, and anger at the pain that he apparently was suffering physically and perhaps emotionally.

So what did he do?

He went down and quickly got a gun--an AR-15 to be exact--and went and shot not only Dr. Phillips but three other people in the process. Those are 285 deaths we could have prevented if we had commonsense gun laws in place.

Of the 45,000 people who died from gun violence last year alone--we are talking about making people safe--45,000 deaths--they are not safe--how many would have also been spared had our laws been stronger?

Frankly, I, myself, would favor reinstituting the 1994 assault weapons ban for which I voted. And I lamented the fact that when my Republican colleagues were in charge of the House, Senate, and the Presidency, they allowed that law to go out of existence. None of us can speculate what the cost of that was, but there is no doubt in my mind there was a cost. In fact, that bill reduced mass shootings then, and it would do so again now.

There is much I believe we ought to do as the Representatives of the American people in this House. The House, though, has already taken action on two very critical gun safety measures supported by 9 out of 10 Americans. We don't have 9 out of 10 Americans who are Democrats in this country. Neither side does. But if you have any credence in polling data that says what Americans think, 9 out of 10 think that comprehensive background checks should be the law of the land. I don't know a commonsense argument against that.

We passed the Charleston loophole. This gentleman who bought that gun 3 hours or thereabouts before he killed Dr. Phillips would have had time to cool off and to perhaps have second thoughts, to perhaps have saved the life of a doctor whose job it was to save lives. We sent those bills over, and Senate Republicans, however, have refused to allow even debate on either of these bills--even debate on either of these bills that are overwhelmingly supported by the American people.

I know that my Republican colleagues are as disturbed by the murder of children as Democrats are. I believe that. I hope that is the case, but I believe it. But I am confounded by the unwillingness to respond in an effective way even on asking that everybody get checked out, so we know they are not criminally insane or a felon or an abuser or on the terrorist watch list; but it is no to comprehensive background checks just to see if somebody is a danger to themselves or others.

I know that our colleagues across the aisle shed tears when their constituents die from gun violence, as we do. This should not be a Democratic or Republican issue but an issue of our common humanity and our common sense. If we work together, we can achieve a safer America.

We have seen promising signs from the Senate that a bipartisan agreement may be possible. I surely hope it is. But this House will not and should not wait to act. That is why we are voting on this Protecting Our Kids Act today.

This legislation is, in my view, long overdue. I participated in a sit-in on this floor to try to galvanize the Congress. It didn't work. Sadly, it didn't work. To the disappointment of the American people, it didn't work.

This comprehensive bill is the product of tireless efforts by many of our colleagues to address issues that contribute to our gun violence epidemic.

Thanks to Robin Kelly, the Protecting Our Kids Act will crack down on gun traffickers who take guns, where? Into the big cities and spread them around. Now, they sell them; they don't give them away for free. But it is the traffickers who break the laws--not of Chicago, but perhaps don't break the laws of where they bought multiple guns for those who can't buy guns.

Similarly, Representatives Cicilline and Espaillat pushed to include provisions that would regulate elusive ghost guns. Now, I chaired the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government that oversaw the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Division, and we couldn't even make sure that ordnance--bullets--could be traced because the NRA was opposed.

Representative Titus ensured that we would ban bump stocks, a weapon component that allowed a gunman to kill 60 people in Las Vegas in 2017 and wound hundreds more.

Was he a hunter? Was he a sportsman?

Additionally, this bill will restrict high-capacity magazines which enable shooters to inflict maximum destruction in the minimum amount of time, thanks to language included by Representative Deutch. Because of Chairwoman DeLauro, Chairwoman Jackson Lee, and Representative Slotkin, this bill also protects our kids from gun violence at home by implementing gun storage safety standards.

Common sense and common purpose protects our kids.

This act also includes Representative Anthony Brown's measure to raise the legal age for purchasing assault weapons and shotguns from 18 to 21. You can buy an AR-15, apparently, or some other multiple-shot, quick-shot weapon, but you can't buy a drink in many jurisdictions.

Is that common sense?

This legislation never would have come together without the leadership of Chairman Nadler. I thank the chairman for his leadership, and I thank the committee for their work on this bill. I thank Chairwoman Jackson Lee of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, and I thank Chairman Thompson of the Gun Violence Task Force.

This bill, as well as additional legislation from Representatives McBath and Carbajal that will be considered subsequently on Thursday, takes major

steps forward to make our communities and our children safer.

Is it perfect?

Will it stop all the killing?

No, it won't. We know that.

Is there a perfect answer?

No.

Is making schools safer bad?

No. We support that.

I don't know that we support making them into armed camps, as some would suggest, because I think that would make them less safe in many respects.

So I urge all of my colleagues to put our country, our constituents, and our kids first. Let us rise above party and partisanship and special interests as we seek to do what is right, what is necessary, and what an overwhelming majority of the American people are looking to Congress to achieve.

Isn't that what we are supposed to do, represent the people?

I am hopeful we can find a bipartisan path forward to enact long- overdue reforms to make our communities safer from gun violence because a bullet doesn't care about your race, your faith, your age, your orientation, or any other factor.

And yes, people do care about those things and manifest it in the worst way possible. But they do it with an instrument that will allow them to kill a lot of people very quickly.

The American people care what we do here today. The American people care that their Congress is doing everything possible to keep them safe, to keep our children safe. The American people care.

Each of us today has a chance to show that we care. God's work on Earth must truly be our own. Vote for this bill. Make our kids and communities and people safer.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I commend him for his leadership in bringing this important legislation to the floor. Protecting our kids; what could be more important than that? I thank the gentleman for channeling the ideas and enthusiasms of so many Members on both sides of the aisle as he brings this bipartisan legislation to the floor.

I thank Mr. Nadler for his leadership, and I thank the task force led by Mr. Mike Thompson of California for

his important work advancing the background check partisan legislation, as well as Mr. Clyburn for his legislation that is already over on the Senate side.

Madam Speaker, but today, we are doing more. Today, we were called to action by our colleague, Lucy McBath, who told us that today we must make history to protect the children, and we are going to make history by making progress.

So I thank all of our Members, so many Members who have been so important to this legislation. I thank them on behalf of the courageous survivors of gun violence who have spoken out, out of respect for those who lost their lives and with appreciation for the gravity of this issue that we come to be on this floor.

Madam Speaker, as the families from Buffalo to Uvalde bury their loved ones, even more communities have been hit by gun violence. Just last weekend, Americans watched in horror as at least 13 mass shootings unfolded across the country: from Philadelphia to Chattanooga to Phoenix to Grand Rapids.

As the data shows, the challenge of gun violence goes much further than these mass killings. Every night on our streets, Americans are being killed in gun crimes. And every day, our Nation loses Americans to suicides and accidents. This is a tragic daily massacre, which rarely makes the headlines or the evening news, but it is there.

So here we are, for the children. When those who were advocating gun violence or perpetrating it went into the classrooms, they crossed a line. It is terrible the gun violence that we have had in our country. But that they would go into Newtown and shoot little children who are barely out of diapers; and again now in Texas, these beautiful children in elementary school, and everything that happened in between, it was an assault on the culture of our country that our children would not be able to go to school without fear or concern about their safety.

Our children are, as President Kennedy said, our greatest resource and our best hope for the future. They are our precious treasure. Everything we do is for the children. And for the children, we must stop this gun violence in our country and restore their confidence in their safety, wherever they may be. So we are on a crusade for the children, and sadly now, by the children.

Children testifying in committee. Children coming to events. Last week, I had a 5th grader come to a Wear Orange rally that we had in California, where she said she lost both her mother and her father in separate gun violence incidents. In 5th grade, speaking at the podium so courageously. Children turning their grief, their experience now, not just--it would be enough to end the violence of losing a loved one, but to witness it and be a victim of it in the classroom. A crusade for the children by the children and of the children in terms of our motivation to stop this for our precious children.

Indeed, America had lost more children from gun violence than any other cause.

Does that embarrass you to think that in our country more children have died from gun violence than any other cause?

These stories are tragically all too common in America today. Countless more than those who died are forever changed by the horrors of gun violence that they saw firsthand or that they experienced in their families.

It is sickening that our children are forced to live in this constant fear. And make no mistake, these gunmen who choose to shoot at innocent children are desecrating, again, our culture--a culture where all of us, all of our kids must and should feel safe, whether it is in school, in church, the movies, or any other place.

Madam Speaker, protecting our children can and must be a unifying mission for our Nation because they are our, as I said, our national treasure. That is why, under the unyielding leadership of our chairman, Mr. Nadler, the House will pass the Protecting Our Kids Act today. This bold package includes commonsense measures that will make an enormous difference to save lives.

Who wouldn't vote to raise the age from 18 to 21 for a person to have a weapon of war?

Who wouldn't vote to raise the age to take weapons of war out of the hands of teenagers?

Who wouldn't vote to get illegal guns off of our streets by cracking down on gun trafficking which is a danger to people but also to law enforcement?

Who wouldn't vote for background checks on ghost gun purchases which our law enforcement tells us is a major concern out there?

Who wouldn't vote to protect children from stolen weapons or accidental shootings with safe storage requirements?

Who wouldn't vote to ban bump stocks--that was President Trump's executive order--bump stocks from civilian use or outlawing high- capacity magazines designed for massacres not for killing varmints.

These measures will not only help stem the tide of mass murder but address the equally urgent and wide range of daily gun deaths. Let us salute the many Members who have worked persistently to craft this strong legislation, written to earn bipartisan support that the American people expect and deserve.

Today's package is just one step in the House's relentless fight to stop the bloodshed. Our Democratic majority, as I mentioned earlier, has twice passed the Bipartisan Background Checks Act and the Enhanced Background Checks Act, which together would put our Nation on a path toward universal background checks.

Tomorrow, thanks again to Congresswoman McBath and Congressman Carbajal, we will pass the Federal Extreme Risk Protection Act, otherwise known as the Red Flag Act. This will help keep guns out of the hands of those who pose a threat to themselves or others.

Soon, we will vote for Mr. Cicilline's Active Shooter Alert Act to create an AMBER alert-style notification during a mass shooting, a measure widely supported by law enforcement.

And the House will continue to consider additional actions we can take that have a proven record of saving lives. When I talk about these different things, people say, well, what difference is that going to make?

Well, the cumulative effect is a big one. We know there are negotiations going on in the Senate and we are prayerful, we are prayerful about those. Hopefully, we can make some advancement.

Because for all of us who have met again and again and again with the survivors of gun violence, some coming time and again to check up on what is happening, others new to that horrible club that none of us wants to be a member of, they just want something to happen.

Years ago, when I met with the survivors of Pulse, I said: What can we do to be of comfort to you? They said: Just make sure it doesn't happen to someone else.

That is what they said. They didn't say: I need this; I need that. They said: Just make sure it doesn't happen to someone else.

Right now, in the eyes of survivors and indeed all Americans, their eyes are on us in the Congress to see whether we have the courage, the commitment, and the conviction to protect the children.

For some in Congress, a moment of silence is good enough for them, a moment of silence. As Mr. Higgins said when he talked about Buffalo, a moment of silence now, but action after. Now, we are taking that action.

So many of our colleagues have talked about incidents in their district, personal experiences shared by people who have been victims of gun violence. Mr. Espaillat talked about what happened in his district.

Again, so many of you have come speaking of the horror of it all, and every time it happens, it is as if it has happened for the first time because the horror is so fresh. But it is not the first time for the victims who have to relive so much of the experience.

To those who a moment of silence is good enough because you don't have the courage to take a vote to protect the children, I would say your political survival is totally insignificant compared to the survival of our children.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come together with a strong ``aye'' vote on all the provisions

in the bill for the final package and to do so as part of a crusade of, by, and for the children. I urge an ``aye'' vote on the Protecting Our Kids legislation.

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

What happened in Uvalde, Buffalo, and Tulsa is as wrong as wrong could be, and our hearts go out to those communities and those families who have been impacted in such a terrible way. The answer is not to destroy the Second Amendment, but that is exactly where the Democrats want to go.

Don't take my word for it. Just look at what they said. The President of the United States said last week that he wants to get rid of the most popular handgun in the country. Michael Moore, a Democrat--not a Member of Congress but a Democrat--said it is time to repeal the Second Amendment.

During our 10-hour markup last Thursday in the committee hearing, Representative Jackson Lee said if this bill passes, we are not finished. Representative Jones said if this bill doesn't pass, we will end the filibuster; we will expand the Supreme Court; we will do whatever it takes to get law-abiding citizens' guns.

Today, we have this hodgepodge of six bills thrown together. Many of the elements in these bills are unconstitutional. Even the Ninth Circuit has said it is unconstitutional what they want to do on the age limit. These bills would say when you can buy a firearm, what kind of firearm you can get, and where and how you have to store that firearm in your own darn home.

Of course, tomorrow, they are bringing the so-called red flag law to the floor. Someone who doesn't like you can file a complaint. Within 24 hours, there is a hearing that you are not allowed to be at--you can't confront your accuser--and they can take away your Second Amendment liberty. That is the bill they are going to pass tomorrow.

Frankly, this shouldn't surprise us. For 18 months, Democrats have assaulted the First Amendment. It shouldn't surprise us now that they are coming after the Second. Every right we enjoy as Americans under the First Amendment--your right to practice your faith, your right to assemble, your right to petition your government, freedom of the press--heck, some of them call for outlawing certain networks.

And freedom of speech, just a few weeks ago, the Biden administration tried to put together the Disinformation Governance Board. Oh, my goodness.

The attacks on the First Amendment have been sustained. They have been going on for 18 months, and now here they come, going after law- abiding citizens' Second Amendment liberties.

The Speaker started by saying this bill is about protecting our kids. That is important. Sure is. That is what she said, protecting our kids is important. Yes, it is. But this bill doesn't do it.

What this bill does is takes away Second Amendment rights, God-given rights protected by our Constitution, from law-abiding American citizens. That is what this legislation does, and that is why we should oppose it.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz).

Madam Speaker, the previous speaker said ``nonsense.'' It is not nonsense to defend the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment protects our God-given right to protect ourselves, our family, our property, and our freedom. That is not nonsense. That is essential is what it is, and it is a critical part of the Constitution.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald).

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Owens).

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. Greene).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack).

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Bishop).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Steube).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie).

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz).

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

Representative Massie was right on target when he said red flag laws take all guns from some people and they do so without due process. This bill takes some guns from all people. But Democrats say, don't worry. We are not out to get the Second Amendment. Really?

Here is what Representative Cicilline said in committee last week: Spare me the B.S. about constitutional rights.

Here is what Representative Jones said last week in committee: If the filibuster obstructs us, we will abolish it. If the Supreme Court objects, we will expand. We will not rest until we have taken weapons out of circulation in our communities. Each and every day, we will do whatever it takes; whatever it takes.

They are out to get the Second Amendment.

The right of the American people, the right of we, the people, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. That is what bothers them. They don't trust we, the people. They are smarter than us. They are better than us. They don't trust law-abiding American citizens. They do not trust them.

And that is what is so wrong with the direction we are going with this legislation and the legislation they are going to bring to the floor tomorrow.

We have seen they don't trust Americans to exercise their First Amendment liberties. Now they are going after their Second Amendment liberties. And that red flag law they are going to bring up tomorrow goes after the Fifth Amendment due process rights that we enjoy as American citizens. That is why we should oppose this legislation and the legislation tomorrow.

And I hope, as my friend from Florida said, I hope the United States Senate doesn't go down this red flag trail that they are now on and further take away liberties from law-abiding American people.

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

Madam Speaker, today we are debating six gun control provisions in one. Why are there six bills in here? Because none of them work.

But you can't take six bills that don't work and put them together and make one that does. It doesn't work that way.

These are unserious, unconstitutional and, most troubling, dangerous provisions; six titles in this bill, and they all suffer the same inherent problem that gun control suffers when we pass it here in these legislatures, and that problem is, criminals do not obey the law. They are going to love some of these laws, though.

Let's take, for instance, the so-called safe storage provisions in here. Home invaders are going to love the fact that Congress has now told you you need to lock up your gun in your house. How are you going to defend yourself when your guns are locked up? This is dangerous. It is also unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court already ruled in Heller that it is unconstitutional to require Dick Heller to keep his gun disassembled and unloaded in his house. That violates the Second Amendment.

Think about the provision to raise the age to 21 to buy a long gun. That includes rifles and shotguns, not just a handgun, which is already impermissible. This is unconstitutional, and it is immoral.

Why is it immoral? Because we are telling 18-, 19-, and 20-year olds to register for the draft. You can go die for your country. We expect you to defend us, but we are not going to give you the tools to defend yourself and your family.

I offered an amendment in committee that would let the spouse of somebody in the armed services serving overseas acquire the means of self-defense while her husband is serving overseas; let her defend her and her children. Just because she is 18, 19, or 20, and her husband is serving, she shouldn't be defenseless. The Democrats voted it down in committee.

I offered an amendment to say that we won't treat domestic violence victims as gun traffickers if they happen to get a gun from a neighbor instead of getting it from the gun store. Every Democrat but one voted against protecting domestic violence victims.

Let me give you one that is not a hypothetical. My dear friend Nikki Goeser, who worked in my congressional office, watched her husband murdered in front of her in a gun-free zone because she followed the law. She had a licensed registered firearm and, in a moment she regrets to this day, she left it in her car because she knew the law said not to bring it in there; but her stalker knew she wasn't going to have a gun. Her stalker murdered her husband in front of her.

Criminals don't follow the law. So let's do the one serious thing we could do.

Why must children keep dying? Let's quit advertising our schools as soft targets. Let's quit saying that these are gun-free zones, and that these kids are sitting ducks.

In 1990, Congress did another knee-jerk reaction that has cost more lives than it saved. It is called the 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act.

Fortunately, some States and school districts have had the wisdom to override this provision. And guess what? We don't have to guess.

Does hardening our schools work? Does letting trained teachers and professional staff carry, does it protect children? We know it does. Because in every single school district, every school that has allowed them to carry, there hasn't just been no mass shootings, there hasn't been a single shooting. Why?

Because these insane individuals, they seek one thing. They seek some twisted version of glory, which involves a body count. And they know they will not achieve that if they walk into that school and the first thing they see when they whip out their gun is a staff member who is armed and trained, and they die unceremoniously. That is what they deserve.

Put three of those on the news, and you could stop this.

So we should quit advertising our schools. Quit making that the Federal default that they are sitting ducks.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding.

The Democrats today say they don't want to take your guns away. Well, then why does the legislation do just that?

What they should say today is: We don't want to take all of the guns away from all of the people just yet because we know we can't get away with that.

The reality is the anti-Second Amendment lobby has vastly outspent all of the pro-Second Amendment groups put together in the last several elections.

Who is in the pocket of whom?

So the red flag laws take all of the guns from some of the people, and the bill that will pass tonight, if the Democrats are fortunate enough to do so, will take some of the guns from all of the people.

Now, why are the gun owners who don't own so-called high-capacity magazines, for instance, concerned?

Why are the gun owners who don't own, for instance, AR-15-style weapons concerned about this legislation?

Because they know the legislation won't work, and the response to this unserious and unconstitutional legislation that will allow the school shootings to continue will be more gun control from the Democrats.

Let me give you an example, Madam Speaker. They have a high-capacity magazine ban in here that bans any magazine that can accept over 15 rounds.

Well, guess what?

At Virginia Tech, the shooter carried 17 magazines none of which held more than 15 rounds and most of which held 10 rounds. The shooter at Columbine carried 13 magazines, each of which held 10 rounds. This legislation would have done absolutely nothing.

It is not about how many rounds a magazine holds. It is about the evil intent of the shooter and is there somebody there with the capacity to stop that shooter before they can get going.

Why is this legislation dead on arrival in the Senate?

Why is it dead on arrival in the Supreme Court?

One of my colleagues has already acknowledged they know this is unconstitutional, and they will pack the Court if they have to. They said it in the Judiciary Committee, to keep this legislation alive after it should long since die.

But why is it dead? Because Americans don't support it.

You have quoted statistics. Those statistics are fake. If they were true, this would breeze through the Senate. But they are not.

And so I urge my colleagues to respect the Constitution; respect the will of the American people; to respect the safety of American citizens and, most of all, the safety of children. Let's do something to protect them instead of these fake virtue signals that will do nothing but to curtail the Second Amendment rights of Americans.