Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1808) to regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1302, I call up the bill (H.R. 1808) to regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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. 1808.

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

Mr. Speaker, today, we take another step to advance historic gun violence prevention legislation. H.R. 1808, the Assault Weapons Ban Act of 2022, restores and updates the prior assault weapons ban that kept weapons of war out of our communities for a decade before Republicans opposed its renewal.

As we have learned all too well in recent years, assault weapons, especially when combined with high-capacity magazines, are the weapon of choice for mass shootings. These military-style weapons are designed to kill the most people in the shortest amount of time. Quite simply, there is no place for them in our streets.

In 1994, we banned these killing machines, and countless lives were saved. But that ban was allowed to lapse 10 years later. Since then, we have seen the predictable results: Mass shootings have increased exponentially in our public spaces. Schools, movie theaters, supermarkets, houses of worship, parades, you name it, have all become vulnerable to attack.

Uvalde, Parkland, Tree of Life Synagogue. How many more mass shootings must we endure? When will we learn?

Well, I hope we are starting to learn today. I hope we are starting to learn today indeed.

The Assault Weapons Ban Act would prohibit the sale, manufacture, transfer, or possession of semiautomatic assault weapons and large- capacity ammunition feeding devices. At the same time, it grandfathers existing semiautomatic assault weapons and contains numerous protections for law enforcement and responsible gun owners, including hunters, gun collectors, farmers, sports shooters, and those who use firearms for self-defense.

It is important to consider today's debate in the context of our other efforts to address the violence plaguing our communities.

Time and again, Democrats have advanced responsible gun safety legislation, only to face Republican opposition.

We have advanced legislation to conduct background checks for all gun sales, to close the Charleston loophole, to close the boyfriend loophole, and to keep guns away from those who are a danger to themselves or others.

We advanced my bill, the Protecting our Kids Act, and we sent the President the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which was signed into law and will save lives. These proposals were opposed by all but a few of our Republican colleagues.

Today, they have another chance to take the action needed to make our communities safer. Will they stand with us? Will they show that they have learned? Or will they stand with an industry that right now is promoting a weapon to civilians that is powerful enough to shoot through bulletproof vests?

Will our Republican colleagues choose to defend the weapons of choice for mass murderers and those who seek to target law enforcement? Or will they choose to defend Americans who simply want to go to school, to go shopping, to march in a parade, or to go to a movie theater without the fear of having a target on their back? It is an easy choice for me.

I thank Congressman Cicilline for his leadership on this important legislation, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), the sponsor of this bill and a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Fact: Contrary to Mr. Roy, this bill takes away nobody's weapons because existing weapons are grandfathered in if he would only read the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, contrary to Mr. Roy, I include in the Record a report from Third Way titled ``The Red State Murder Problem''.

[From Third Way, Mar.15, 2022]

The Red State Murder Problem

(By Kylie Murdock and Jim Kessler)

Every news outlet from FOX to CNN to The New York Times to

local newspapers has a story with attention-grabbing

headlines like ``US cities hit all-time murder records.'' Fox

News and Republicans have jumped on this and framed it as a

``Democrat'' problem. They blame it on Democrat's ``soft-on-

crime'' approach and have even referred to a New York

District Attorney's approach as ``hug-a-thug.'' Many news

stories outside of Fox have also purported that police reform

is responsible for this rise in murder and have pointed to

cities like New York and Los Angeles.

There is a measure of truth to these stories. The US saw an

alarming 30% increase in murder in 2020. While 2021 data is

not yet complete, murder was on the rise again this past

year. Some ``blue'' cities, like Chicago, Baltimore, and

Philadelphia, have seen real and persistent increases in

homicides. These cities--along with others like Los Angeles,

New York, and Minneapolis--are also in places with wall-to-

wall media coverage and national media interest.

But there is a large piece of the homicide story that is

missing and calls into question the veracity of the right-

wing obsession over homicides in Democratic cities: murder

rates are far higher in Trump-voting red states than Biden-

voting blue states. And sometimes, murder rates are highest

in cities with Republican mayors.

For example, Jacksonville, a city with a Republican mayor,

had 128 more murders in 2020 than San Francisco, a city with

a Democrat mayor, despite their comparable populations. In

fact, the homicide rate in Speaker Nancy Pelosi's San

Francisco was half that of House Republican Leader Kevin

McCarthy's Bakersfield, a city with a Republican mayor that

overwhelmingly voted for Trump. Yet there is barely a

whisper, let alone an outcry, over the stunning levels of

murders in these and other places.

We collected 2019 and 2020 murder data from all 50 states.

(Comprehensive 2021 data is not yet available.) We pulled the

data from yearly crime reports released by state governments,

specifically the Departments of Justice and Safety. For

states that didn't issue state crime reports, we pulled data

from reputable local news sources. To allow for comparison,

we calculated the state's per capita murder rate, the number

of murders per 100,000 residents, and categorized states by

their presidential vote in the 2020 election, resulting in an

even 25-25 split.

We found that murder rates are, on average, 40% higher in

the 25 states Donald Trump won in the last presidential

election compared to those that voted for Joe Biden. In

addition, murder rates in many of these red states dwarf

those in blue states like New York, California, and

Massachusetts. And finally, many of the states with the worst

murder rates--like Mississippi, Kentucky, Alabama, South

Carolina, and Arkansas--are ones that few would describe as

urban. Only 2 of America's top 100 cities in population are

located in these high murder rate states. And not a single

one of the top 10 murder states registers in the top 15 for

population density.

Whether one does or does not blame Republican leaders for

high murder rates, it seems that Republican officeholders do

a better job of blaming Democrats for lethal crime than

actually reducing lethal crime.

If you're tuned in to the media, you'd think murder is

rocketing skyward in New York, California, Illinois. But

those states don't even crack the top ten.

In fact, the top per capita murder rate states in 2020 were

mostly those far from massive urban centers and Democratic

mayors and governors. Eight of the top ten worst murder rate

states voted for Trump in 2020. None of those eight has

supported a Democrat for president since 1996.

The chart below shows the top 10 murder rate states in

2020. Mississippi had the highest homicide rate at 20.50

murders per 100,000 residents, followed by Louisiana at

15.79, Kentucky at 14.32, Alabama at 14.2, and Missouri at

14. The national average was 6.5 per 100,000 residents, but

the top five states had rates more than twice that high.

These red states are not generating ``murder is out of

control'' national headlines. They seem to generate no

headlines at all. The rest of the top ten were filled out by

South Carolina, New Mexico, Georgia, Arkansas, and

Tennessee--all states rarely talked about in breathless media

reports about rampant crime in Democratic strongholds.

Notably, New Mexico and Georgia were the only Biden-voting

states in the top ten, and they ranked seventh and eighth,

respectively.

Five of the largest Biden-voting states by population, and

those often in the news when it comes to crime, had much

lower murder rates. New York at 4.11 per 100,000 residents,

California at 5.59, and New Jersey at 3.70 were each well

below the national average. Pennsylvania (7.22) and Illinois

(9.20) were higher than the national average. But

Mississippi's murder rate was nearly 400% higher than New

York's, more than 250% higher than California's, and about

120% higher than Illinois's. In fact, the five states with

the highest murder rates, all Trump-voting states, had rates

at least 240% higher than New York's murder rate and at least

150% higher than California's, the homes to some of the

largest cities featured prominently in the ``crime is out of

control'' narrative.

Beyond the top 10, we looked at the 2020 murder rates in

the 25 states that voted for Donald Trump and compared it

with the murder rates in the 25 states that voted for Joe

Biden. The 8.20 murders per 100,000 residents rate in Trump

states was 40% higher than the 5.78 murders per 100,000

residents in Biden states. These Biden-voting states include

the ``crime-is-out-of-control'' cities of Los Angeles, New

York City, Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, Portland,

Baltimore, and Minneapolis, among other large cities.

Among the 50 states, murder rates were often well above the

national average in many Republican-controlled states and

cities. Jacksonville with 176 homicides and a murder rate

(19.776) more than three times that of New York City (5.94)

has a Republican mayor. Tulsa (19.64) and Oklahoma City

(11.16) have Republican mayors in a Republican state and have

murder rates that dwarf that of Los Angeles (6.74).

Lexington's Republican mayor saw record homicides in 2020 and

2021, with a murder rate (10.61) nearly twice that of New

York City. Bakersfield (11.91) and Fresno (14.09) each have

Republican mayors and murder rates far higher than either San

Francisco or Los Angeles.

Of course, some cities controlled by Democrats have

alarming murder rates, like Chicago (28.49) and Houston

(17.32). But we hear about these and other Democrat-run

cities all the time. We aren't getting the whole picture.

In 2020, murder rates increased nearly everywhere. But they

increased more in Trump-voting states than Biden-voting

states, albeit slightly. The average increase in murder rate

across all Trump-voting states was 32.2% compared to 30.8% in

Biden-voting states.

Three out of the five states with the highest murder rates

in 2020--Mississippi, Missouri, and Alabama--didn't have

reliable 2019 data available, so they weren't included in

this analysis.

Three of the five states with the largest increase in

murder rate were Trump-voting Wyoming at 91.7%, South Dakota

at 69%, and Nebraska at 59.1%. These states are decidedly

rural and do not conform to the chaos-in-the-city meme that

has overtaken the crime debate. Biden-voting Wisconsin came

in at the number three spot at 63.2% and Minnesota came in

fifth at 58.1%. Out of the top ten states, six were Trump-

voting states--with the additional three being Kentucky, West

Virginia, and Kansas. The remaining states in the top ten

were Delaware and Washington. Only one of the top ten states

in murder rate increases, Delaware, was among the top twenty

in population density.

Again, California, New York, and Illinois aren't in the top

ten. California's murder rate increase was 31.1%, or about

the national average. Both New York (45.8%) and Illinois

(38.2%) were above the national average.

The current narrative around crime and murder is convenient

and wrong. Whether you're watching CNN or Fox News, or

getting news online or from a traditional newspaper, you

would think that the increase in murder is a phenomenon found

mostly in liberal cities. Many have tried attributing this

increase to Democratic policies, specifically police reform.

Republican lawmakers and ad makers have contributed to this

narrative through clever messaging and strategies.

But the data clearly paint a different story. The increase

in murders is not a liberal cities problem but a national

problem. Murder rates are actually higher in Republican,

Trump-voting states that haven't even flirted with ideas like

defund the police. Eight of the ten most lawless, high-murder

states are not only Trump-voting states, but GOP bastions for

the last quarter of a century. A more accurate conclusion

from the data is that Republicans do a far better job blaming

others for high murder rates than actually reducing high

murder rates.

We sought 2019 and 2020 murder data from all 50 states. Our

primary source was the annual crime reports released by state

governments, more specifically from their Departments of

Justice or Public Safety. We chose state data because we

found it's more comprehensive than FBI data which is often

compiled later. For example, ``the FBI estimated crime

statistics for Mississippi are based on data received from

113 of 251 law enforcement agencies in the state that year.''

37 states had crime reports for the years 2019 and 2020:

Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut,

Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky,

Massachusetts, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, North

Carolina, North Dakota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey,

Nevada, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South

Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia,

Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. For the remaining states

we pulled data from published public sources: Alabama--US

News, Georgia--US News, Hawaii--The Center Square, Indiana--

Hartford City News

Times, Louisiana--US News, Maryland--Ocean City Today,

Mississippi--US News, Missouri--US News, New Mexico--US News,

Ohio--Axios, Oregon--KOIN, Vermont--WCAX, West Virginia--The

Center Square. In seven states, the public sources only

provided murder per capita rates, so using the rates and

census population data, we estimated the number of murders in

that state. Data and sources are attached above.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schneider).

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter of endorsement of the assault weapons ban from the Major Cities Chiefs Association, a professional organization of law enforcement executives representing the largest cities in the United States.

Major Cities Chiefs Association,

July 20, 2022.

Hon. Jerrold Nadler,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Jim Jordan,

Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Nadler and Ranking Member Jordan: I write on

behalf of the Major Cities Chiefs Association (MCCA), a

professional organization of law enforcement executives

representing the largest cities in the United States and

Canada. Thank you for including H.R. 1808, the Assault

Weapons Ban of 2022, in today's markup. The MCCA was proud to

endorse this legislation when it was introduced earlier this

Congress.

The MCCA has long advocated for sensible firearms and gun

safety policies. In 2018, the Association adopted a Firearms

Violence Policy that consists of several common-sense

reforms, including banning assault weapons and high-capacity

magazines. Many law enforcement officials have closely

studied assault weapons and firearms with high-capacity

magazines and determined they have no reasonable sporting or

hunting purpose.

Assault weapons and high-capacity magazines also represent

a significant threat to law enforcement officers responding

to violent crimes. For example, the suspect who murdered NYPD

Officers Jason Rivera and Wilbert Mora in January 2022 used a

firearm with a high-capacity magazine that allowed his gun to

hold 40 additional rounds. Earlier this month, Detroit PD

Officer Loren Michael Courts was killed by a suspect with an

AK-47-style pistol that would have been banned under H.R.

1808.

The MCCA encourages all Members of the Committee to support

the Assault Weapons Ban of 2022 and report it favorably

during today's markup.

Sincerely,

Jeri Williams,

Chief, Phoenix Police Department,

President, Major Cities Chiefs Association.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a report from the Violence Policy Center entitled, ``Target: Law Enforcement, Assault Weapons in the News.''

Section One

Introduction: Background on Assault Weapons and Federal Attempts at

Their Regulation

Assault weapons. Semiautomatic assault weapons are civilian

versions of automatic military assault rifles like the AK-47

and the M-16. The civilian guns look the same as their

military brethren because they are identical functionally,

except for one feature: military assault rifles are machine

guns. A machine gun fires continuously as long as its trigger

is held back--until it runs out of ammunition. Civilian

assault rifles, in contrast, are semi-automatic weapons. The

trigger of a semiautomatic weapon must be pulled back

separately for each round fired. Because federal law has

banned the sale of new machine guns to civilians since 1986

and heavily regulates sales to civilians of older model

machine guns, there is virtually no civilian market for

military assault weapons. Nonetheless, civilian semiautomatic

assault weapons have proven every bit as deadly as their

military counterparts.

Regulation of assault weapons. The regulation of

semiautomatic assault weapons has been a contentious subject

for more than two decades.

In the 1980s foreign manufacturers (principally China)

began dumping semiautomatic versions of the Soviet-designed

AK-47 military assault rifle--a ubiquitous staple of the

world-wide small arms trade--onto the U.S. civilian firearms

market. Colt Industries, a domestic manufacturer, was also

marketing the AR-15, a semiautomatic version of its M-16

machine gun, the standard U.S. military infantry rifle. The

gun industry introduced these semiautomatic versions of

military assault weapons in order to create and exploit new

civilian markets. More particularly, the industry found in

assault weapons a product to compensate for a slump in

handgun sales. Importers and manufacturers rushed copycats

and new models to market. By the end of the decade, a roster

of semiautomatic assault weapons had become household words,

boosted into daily language as much by their glamorization in

entertainment media as by their deadly toll on America's

streets. These guns included, among others, assault pistols

like the MAC-10, MAC-11, and TEC-9, the Ruger Mini-14 rifle,

and several versions of the Israeli Military Industries UZI.

No comprehensive statistics were available about the misuse

of the hundreds of thousands of assault weapons pouring onto

the Nation's streets. But by 1988 police departments and

other law enforcement agencies were often on the receiving

end of assault weapons firepower. Many of them demanded that

the federal government take action to stringently control or

ban semiautomatic assault weapons. In February 1988, for

example, Prince George's County (Maryland) Police Chief

Michael J. Flaherty stated, ``The real issue is the safety of

our officers.'' Holding up a TEC-9 assault pistol, he added,

``It's not used for hunting, and it's not used for sporting

events. In my opinion, they should not be sold in the United

States.''

In 1989 the federal government took a modest regulatory

step. At the urging of William J. Bennett, the director of

the Office of National Drug Control Policy under President

George H. W. Bush, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and

Firearms (ATF) barred the import of a handful of specific

models, including AK-type and UZI assault rifles. The move

was based on a federal statute that effectively limits the

import of firearms to those that are ``generally recognized

as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting

purposes.'' This ``sporting purposes'' test does not apply to

domestically manufactured firearms, however. Law enforcement

officials quickly complained that the putative ban did not

reach many of the most dangerous weapons they faced,

including semiautomatic assault pistols made in the United

States (e.g., the MAC-10, MAC-11, and TEC-9, among others).

Although the Bush Administration claimed to have been

conducting a wide review with the goal of further regulation,

strong opposition by the National Rifle Association (NRA) and

the firearms industry squelched any further regulatory moves

by the Administration. Within a year, Bennett announced

himself opposed to any further regulation, declaring his

opposition at a February 1990 Senate hearing, stating, ``I

don't know a damn thing about guns!''

In 1994, President William J. Clinton signed the 1994

federal assault weapons ``ban.'' The law defined assault

weapons in two different ways--by a list of specific firearm

types, and by a generic description. Thus, the law

specifically named 19 types of guns (e.g., ``Norinco,

Mitchell and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs'') as

assault weapons covered by the putative ``ban.'' It also

generally defined as assault weapons semiautomatic firearms

that could accept a detachable magazine and had any two of a

list of specified design characteristics (e.g., bayonet

mount, folding stock). The 1994 law was deeply flawed. At the

outset it exempted millions of semiautomatic assault weapons

by ``grandfathering'' all such firearms legally owned as of

the date of enactment. For these guns, it was as if the law

had never been passed. They continued to be bought and sold,

many at gun shows where no questions are asked of prospective

buyers in nominally ``private'' sales. Moreover, some of the

design characteristics by which new production or imports

were to be defined as banned assault weapons were simply a

laundry list of superficial cosmetic features that had

nothing to do with the weapons' most deadly functional

features. The gun industry quickly and easily evaded the 1994

law by making slight, cosmetic changes to the supposedly

banned firearms. Gun manufacturers and importers soon openly

boasted of the ease with which they could circumvent the ban.

By the time the 1994 law expired (sunset) in 2004, there were

actually many more types and models of assault weapons

legally on the civilian market than before the law was

passed.

In April 1998 the Clinton Administration attempted to

staunch the flow of cosmetically redesigned foreign assault

weapons by strictly interpreting the ``sporting purposes''

test for imports. The action--taken independent of the 1994

law and intended to close the cosmetic redesign loophole for

imports--was reported to have blocked 58 types of assault

weapons, including in one swoop importation permits pending

at the time for as many as 1.6 million guns. Since this

administrative determination and action has never been

rescinded, it should have survived the expiration of the

broader 1994 assault weapons ban. However, there is

substantial evidence--including extensive gun industry

advertising--which compels the conclusion that the George W.

Bush Administration either ignored or effectively gutted

through administrative artifice the 1998 Clinton import

controls. This evidence includes the following facts.

There are numerous companies that appear to be importing

AK-47 and other assault weapons of the type clearly

prohibited by the import ban. The Russian American Armory

Company offers the Saiga rifle, an AK-47 variant that was one

of the guns specifically excluded from import under the 1998

Clinton rule. The Fabrique Nationale Herstal PS90 assault

rifle, a favorite of Mexican drug cartels, is manufactured in

Belgium and imported by the company's U.S. subsidiary, FN

USA, according to the company's catalogs and promotional

materials.

There seems to have been a substantial increase in the past

few years of assault weapons made primarily from imported

parts that skirt the import ban by incorporating a small,

minimum number of US-made parts into imported assault weapons

(27 C.F.R. Sec. 478.39 prohibits the assembly of a

semiautomatic rifle or any shotgun using more than 10

enumerated parts that are imported if the assembled firearm

is prohibited from importation under 18 USC 925(d)(3)).

ATF has further weakened the prohibition on imported

assault weapons by placing certain extremely problematic

assault rifles on the ``curios or relics'' list. Inclusion on

the ``curios or relics'' list makes a shotgun or rifle

automatically eligible for importation (18 USC

Sec. 925(e)(1)). The most problematic of these are certain

SKS assault rifles manufactured in Yugoslavia and Albania.

The SKS type assault rifle is the ``rifle most commonly

encountered by law enforcement'' according to ATF and is

frequently used to kill police officers. The Clinton

Administration specifically banned SKSs from China and Russia

from import through trade agreements because they are so

frequently involved in crime.

There are examples of firearms being imported that seem to

clearly fall outside of the ``sporting purposes'' test

articulated in 925(d)(3). For example, J&G Sales advertises

``Romanian AK Pistol[s]'' along with Romanian and Hungarian

AK-47 assault rifles.

For all practical purposes, it thus appears that the

federal government has abandoned all attempts to regulate

commerce in assault weapons into and within the United

States. As a result, an unknown but certainly substantial

number of foreign assault weapons poured into the United

States during the Bush Administration and continue to under

the Obama Administration. This is in addition to the enormous

number of firearms exempted from, or manufactured in easy

evasion of, the 1994 law. The only meaningful attempts at

regulating this flood of killing machines exist at the state

level. One outstanding example is California's assault

weapons ban, which has been hammered into an effective ban

after the now-predictable gun industry attempts to evade the

intent of the original law. Even California's law, however,

is undermined by the lack of a strong and effective federal

ban, allowing for out-of-state assault weapons to be

illegally trafficked into the state.

The current study. This study is a snapshot of the effect

of America's laissez-faire policy toward assault weapons.

Based on reports of assault weapons in the news over a two-

year span, it makes clear that assault weapons are frequently

used in crime and confiscated from criminals. Moreover, it

demonstrates that the number of incidents in which law

enforcement officers are reported to have been confronted

with assault weapons rose dramatically in the two-year period

monitored.

Section Two

Sources for This Analysis

The dearth of data. Firearms enjoy the dubious distinction

of being the only consumer product not subject to federal

public health and safety regulation. Moreover, there is no

national database tracking deaths and injuries from specific

types and models of firearms. And only the most rudimentary,

summary information is collected at any level about criminal

use of firearms. As a result, public policy analysts,

legislators, and public health and safety administrators must

make do with crude data and anecdotal analysis. This is

neither an accident nor a product of inattention. It is the

deliberate result of a coldly calculated long-term policy of

strangling information about guns and their public health

effects designed by the National Rifle Association and its

major client, the gun industry, and implemented by an all-

too-pliant Congress. The firearms industry and gun lobby know

that if as much data were available to the public about death

and injury resulting from firearms as is available about, for

example tires, toys, or Tacoma pick-up trucks, the gun lobby

would lose the public debate.

The Tiahrt Amendment. A blatant and crucial example of this

iron curtain surrounding information about the carnage and

criminality caused by firearms is a federal spending

prohibition known as the ``Tiahrt Amendment.''

For the past six fiscal years (2004 through 2010),

legislation making appropriations for ATF has contained

language severely restricting release of information about

guns traced to crime scenes contained in the agency's

Firearms Tracing System database. This restriction has become

known as the ``Tiahrt Amendment,'' after its principal

sponsor, Representative Todd Tiahrt of Kansas.

For many years, crime gun tracing data was publicly

available under the provisions of the Freedom of Information

Act (FOIA). It was an imperfect but extraordinarily useful

surrogate for a badly needed, but nonexistent, national

firearms and public health database and tracking system.

Crime gun tracing data was routinely used by city officials

and law enforcement agencies to determine the sources of

illegally trafficked firearms and to identify corrupt gun

dealers and the types of guns most often traced to crime. The

``Tiahrt Amendment'' cut off even this basic data. It

prohibits ATF from releasing any data contained in the

database, except in a limited fashion to individual law

enforcement agencies. There is also a prohibition on use of

the data in civil litigation.

Proponents of the ``Tiahrt'' restrictions claim that the

release of tracing data could interfere with ongoing law

enforcement investigations. However, prior to implementation

of the ``Tiahrt Amendment'' exemptions to the FOIA enabled

ATF to withhold any information that could interfere with law

enforcement investigations. The FOIA explicitly protects from

disclosure any information that would interfere with

enforcement or reveal confidential information. Moreover, ATF

compilations of tracing data (e.g., top 10 crime guns) bore

no conceivable relation to the compromise of any

investigation. The ``Tiahrt Amendment'' simply represents an

unwarranted and cynical restriction on public access to

information, enacted in the interest of protecting the gun

industry and acquiesced to by a Congress frightened by the

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

MR. HIGGINS of New York. Mr. Speaker, no technology advances more quickly in our society than the technology of killing. Every day, weapons of mass destruction are being made and manipulated to kill more people more quickly.

In Buffalo, New York, May 14, one shooter, a racist shooter, went into a supermarket on Jefferson Avenue and shot 13 people, killing 10 of them. The shooting started and was completed in 2 minutes and 3 seconds; one shooter.

I often heard it said that the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. There was a good guy with a gun in the store that day that was working security; a retired 30-year-veteran of the Buffalo Police Department. But he was helpless because he was outgunned by the bad guy with the gun who had an assault rifle.

I thank Mr. Cicilline for his leadership on this issue, for his thoughtful approach to this, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished majority leader of the House.

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

The previous speaker on the Republican side said that citizens must be able to meet the government with equal arms. The United States Government has hydrogen bombs. Does he think that every citizen ought to have a hydrogen bomb?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

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.

Mr. Speaker, it is no surprise that assault weapons are the weapon of choice for mass shooters and those who target law enforcement. They are designed for ruthless efficiency, killing the most people in the shortest amount of time.

The gentleman from Ohio is right, I did say in the committee, ``Spare us the BS.'' I meant the Republican BS about the Constitution, about the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment is designed not to allow people to fight the government.

Do they want to take up arms against American troops? Is that what they say?

That is what they say. You saw what that did with the insurrection we had recently, and that was a mild case.

No, the Second Amendment is designed to allow for a well-regulated militia, which is to say in our day the National Guard.

The assault weapons ban would take the weapons of war off our streets and save countless lives, and that is why it is supported by all associations of police, the American Federation of Teachers, the American College of Physicians, the American Public Health Association, the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, the Major Cities Chiefs Association. They know what they are doing.

The assault weapons ban would take these weapons of war off our streets. It would prevent more of the Uvaldes, more of the Parklands, more of the Tree of Life synagogues.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support this important legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1302 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), pending which I

yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

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

Madam Speaker, today the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1302, providing for consideration of H.R. 1808, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2022, under a closed rule.

The rule self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairman Nadler. It provides 1 hour of debate equally divided by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary and provides one motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, we have a gun violence crisis in this country, 23 years after Columbine High School, 10 years after Sandy Hook Elementary School, 4 years after Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, and 2 months after Uvalde and Buffalo. The American people are tired of living in fear. They are tired of thoughts and prayers. They are tired of press releases offering sympathy but no solutions.

Last month, the decades-long logjam on passing commonsense gun safety bills was broken. President Biden signed into law the bipartisan Safer Communities Act to help keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

Why?

Because the American people want to see us act. For decades, that hasn't happened. The gun lobby has had an iron grip on this place. But now, finally, that is changing. It is changing because the American people are demanding change, and it is time for all of us to listen.

We can and must do more, which is why, today, we are considering H.R. 1808, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2022.

Now, I want to be crystal clear for everyone who is watching.

This bill is not taking away anybody's guns.

This bill is not about taking away anybody's constitutional rights. The Second Amendment gives Americans the right to own guns, but no right is unconditional or unlimited.

You have the right to free speech, but you don't have the right to shout ``fire'' in a crowded movie theater. You have the right to keep and bear arms, but you don't have the right to own weapons being used to mow people down indiscriminately.

Rights come with responsibilities, and we have a responsibility to try and stop mass shootings.

As Members of Congress, we have a duty to weigh the rights of gun owners with the very first right mentioned in the Declaration of Independence: the right to live; the right to not get shot at school or at a place of worship or at a concert.

It takes zero courage to hide behind the Second Amendment and not debate the merits here.

You know what takes courage?

Standing up to the gun lobby, putting people over politics. That takes courage, and that is what we are doing here today.

Rounds that come out of assault weapons are traveling up to four times faster than out of a handgun. They are traveling at incredible speed and inflict immense damage on people's bodies. When combined with high-capacity magazines, they are designed to kill as many people as possible, as quickly as possible.

Assault weapons do not belong on our streets, plain and simple.

An assault weapon was used in Las Vegas to kill 60 people.

An assault weapon was used at the Pulse Nightclub to kill 49 people.

An assault weapon was used at Sandy Hook to kill 26 people, including 20 children.

Assault weapons slaughter people. They decimate bodies. Physicians say that an AR-15 can actually ``liquefy your organs'' because the projectile is traveling so fast. This does not happen with a typical handgun. This is something unique to assault weapons.

Sixty-seven percent of Americans, including half of all Republicans, support a ban on assault weapons.

This is not a radical idea. We are not in uncharted territory. The Government already bans automatic weapons.

Why?

Because they have no place in our communities.

You don't need an automatic weapon to defend yourself. What we are proposing today is simply addressing another class of weapons that have no place in our communities: assault weapons.

The 1994 assault weapons ban was associated with a 25 percent drop in gun massacres and a 40 percent drop in fatalities. This should not be a difficult vote. Let's come together and advance this commonsense legislation that could save thousands of lives.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, the gentleman talks about statistics. Let's talk about statistics.

Thirty percent of shootings in recent history have involved guns that were banned under the now-expired 1994 assault weapons ban.

Thirteen killed and 23 injured at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. The attackers used an assault weapon.

Twenty-seven killed and one injured at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut. That was in December of 2012. The attacker used an assault weapon.

Forty-nine killed and 53 injured at the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando, Florida, June 2016. The attacker used an assault weapon.

Fifty-eight killed and 887 injured at a country music festival in Las Vegas in October of 2017. The attacker used an assault weapon.

Seventeen killed and 17 injured at a high school in Parkland, Florida, in

February 2018. The alleged attacker used an assault weapon.

I could go on and on.

Twenty-three killed and 26 injured at a Walmart in El Paso in August 2019. The attacker used an assault weapon.

Ten killed and one injured at a grocery store in Boulder, Colorado, in March of 2021. The attacker used an assault weapon.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record this list of incidents involving assault weapons.

30 Percent of Shootings Involved Guns That Were Banned Under the Now-

Expired 1994 Federal Assault-Weapons Law

13 killed and 23 injured at Columbine High School in

Littleton, Colo. (April 1999) The attackers used an assault

weapon.

7 killed at an office in Wakefield, Mass. (Dec. 2000) The

attacker used an assault weapon.

4 killed and 4 injured at a factory in Melrose Park, Ill.

(Feb. 2001) The attacker used an assault weapon.

5 killed and 2 injured in multiple locations in Sacramento

(Sept. 2001) The attacker used an assault weapon.

6 killed and 2 injured in a rural hunting area in

Birchwood, Wis. (Nov. 2004) The attacker used an assault

weapon.

8 killed and 5 injured at a mall in Omaha (Dec. 2007) The

attacker used an assault weapon.

4 killed and 5 injured at a youth center and a church in

Arvada, Colo. (Dec. 2007) The attacker used an assault

weapon.

4 killed in a parking lot in Mt. Airy, N.C. (Nov. 2009) The

attacker used an assault weapon.

4 killed and 7 injured at an IHOP restaurant in Carson

City, Nev. (Sept. 2011) The attacker used an assault weapon.

12 killed and 70 injured at a movie theater in Aurora,

Colo. (July 2012) The attacker used an assault weapon.

27 killed and 1 injured at an elementary school in Newtown,

Conn. (Dec. 2012) The attacker used an assault weapon.

5 killed and 3 injured in multiple locations in Santa

Monica, Calif. (June 2013) The attacker used an assault

weapon.

5 killed and 2 injured at two military centers in

Chattanooga, Tenn. (July 2015) The attacker used an assault

weapon.

14 killed and 22 injured at a social services center in San

Bernardino, Calif. (Dec. 2015) The attackers used an assault

weapon.

49 killed and 53 injured at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando,

Fla. (June 2016) The attacker used an assault weapon.

5 killed and 7 injured during a protest in Dallas (July

2016) The attacker used an assault weapon.

58 killed and 887 injured at a country music festival in

Las Vegas (Oct. 2017) The attacker used an assault weapon.

25 killed and 20 injured at a Baptist church in Sutherland

Springs, Texas (Nov. 2017) The attacker used an assault

weapon.

5 killed and 12 injured in multiple locations in Rancho

Tehama Reserve, Calif. (Nov. 2017) The attacker used an

assault weapon.

4 killed and 1 injured at a car wash in Saltlick Township,

Pa. (Jan. 2018) The attacker used an assault weapon.

17 killed and 17 injured at a high school in Parkland, Fla.

(Feb. 2018) The alleged attacker used an assault weapon.

4 killed and 4 injured at a Waffle House in Nashville

(April 2018) The attacker used an assault weapon.

11 killed and 6 injured at a synagogue in Pittsburgh (Oct.

2018) The alleged attacker used an assault weapon.

23 killed and 26 injured at a Walmart in El Paso (Aug.

2019) The alleged attacker used an assault weapon.

9 killed and 37 injured outside a bar in Dayton, Ohio (Aug.

2019) The attacker used an assault weapon.

7 killed and 23 injured in multiple locations in Odessa,

Texas (Aug. 2019) The attacker used an assault weapon.

4 killed and 3 injured at a kosher market in Jersey City,

N.J. (Dec. 2019) The attackers used an assault weapon.

4 killed and 3 injured at a gas station in Springfield, Mo.

(March 2020) The attacker used an assault weapon.

10 killed and 1 injured at a grocery store in Boulder,

Colo. (March 2021) The alleged attacker used an assault

weapon.

8 killed and 7 injured at a FedEx warehouse in Indianapolis

(April 2021) The attacker used an assault weapon.

10 killed and 3 injured at a grocery store in Buffalo (May

2022) The alleged attacker used an assault weapon.

21 killed and 17 injured at an elementary school in Uvalde,

Texas (May 2022) The attacker used an assault weapon.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Ross), a distinguished member of the Committee on Rules.

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

Let me just respond to the gentlewoman by saying that the manager's amendment adds language to make clear that devices used to make hunting accessible to everyone, especially our disabled veterans, are not affected by this legislation.

This provision also makes sure the gun industry cannot exploit legitimate accessibility devices to make firearms especially deadly for mass shooters as has occurred in the past when bump stocks were claimed to be an accessibility accessory but used to inflict horrible mass violence in the 2017 Las Vegas shooting that killed 60 and injured more than 400 people.

And I say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, I didn't use the words ``weapon of war'' in my opening statement, and I certainly know the difference between an automatic and a semiautomatic weapon, but if that is the argument you want to have, bring that to the parents whose children were lost in Uvalde, you know, who were mowed down by an AR- 15. As I pointed out in my opening statement, these weapons actually decimate bodies. Physicians say that an AR-15 can actually liquify your organs because the projectile is traveling so fast.

As the gentleman may recall, DNA samples had to be gathered from those children who were murdered because their bodies were unrecognizable. So, I mean, come on.

This is about saving lives.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

Let me just say something to my friend from Pennsylvania. You know, maybe it is true that the military doesn't use AR-15s, but I will say to the gentleman that mass shooters do. We saw what an AR-15 can do in Uvalde. We saw what it can do in Buffalo.

I just remind people when you have these kind of debates that people are watching. You know, the parents who lost their children in Uvalde, they are watching. People who have lost ones to mass shootings all around this country are watching. You know, to try to parse words over, well, you know, it is not a military-style weapon or this or that or whatever when we know what these weapons can do, that little children had to be identified with DNA samples because their bodies were blown apart.

You know, you want to talk about extreme positions? We just had a Rules Committee meeting, and Mr. Massie testified before the Rules Committee. You may recall the back and forth between him and Mr. Raskin when Mr. Raskin essentially asked him whether or not machine guns should be legal, and Mr. Massie responded by saying, well, I think States should make that determination.

So that means that if a State wanted to make machine guns legal, it is somehow okay? So you want to talk about extremism? We have seen what extremism is all about from many of my friends on the other side of the aisle, and we have seen the power of the gun lobby, the blood money that has poured into campaigns that has resulted in people coming to the floor and making these ridiculous arguments for us to do nothing. So this is a moment when people have to stand up and be counted.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, very briefly. Maybe the gentleman hasn't been paying attention to what has been going on around here, but this bill actually had a hearing and a markup, 14 hours in the Committee on the Judiciary.

Madam Speaker, the text has been available 72 hours in advance. The manager's amendment was made available on Tuesday night. I don't know what the heck he is talking about.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have great respect for my friend from Pennsylvania and all of my colleagues on the Committee on Rules, and I know they feel strongly about this issue. I believe that many of the concerns that they have raised are unwarranted, and this bill deals with many of them.

As has been said repeatedly, this is not about taking away anybody's guns. It is dealing with the future. It is dealing with ways that we can better protect the people of this country.

So, it is frustrating when we hear arguments about, ``Oh, you said military-style. This, technically, isn't a military weapon,'' or we have all these numbers that have been kind of manipulated and presented as reasons for us to do nothing. I find that really disconcerting. Maybe it is because so many people are dying. Maybe it is because so many people are being murdered by these weapons.

The sheer number is incomprehensible. Maybe some of my colleagues

have lost the human ability to feel what that really means. I mean, I have talked to parents, and I have talked to brothers and sisters, to grandparents, who have lost loved ones in these massacres, who have lost loved ones to assault weapons. I mean, it is painful.

We can do something to make it possible that fewer people are victims of mass shootings, that fewer children die, that fewer churchgoers die, fewer people shopping in the grocery store or going to a concert or just minding their own business.

I mean, the gun violence in this country has reached epidemic proportions. It is unbelievable.

The American people are sick and tired of being scared. I mean, when my own kids go to the movies, I worry about them. I am worried that there might be somebody with an AR-15 that will be in that movie theater, or if they go to a concert. I think my anxiety is similar to the anxiety of most parents when their kids go out. This doesn't have to be.

All I am pleading with my colleagues to do is to think long and hard on how they vote on this.

Madam Speaker, we should all be sick to our stomachs about what is happening. The idea that somehow we can't do anything about it I don't think anybody buys.

I get it. The gun lobby plays a big role with many of my friends on the other side of the aisle. Follow the money; you will see what I am talking about. I don't want you to do anything, but I am pleading with my colleagues, especially on the Republican side of the aisle. I mean, this is the right thing to do.

The previous assault weapons ban had an impact. Unfortunately, it was left to expire. I mean, we need to pass this. This is the right thing to do. Talk to the families. Talk to those who lost loved ones in one of these massacres.

As I said, to defend AR-15s that can destroy the bodies of people--I remind you that the children in Uvalde, many of them had to be identified by DNA.

I mean, at some point, we have to say enough is enough. At some point, we have to turn our words into action.

Madam Speaker, I am hoping and praying that this is the day. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for the rule and vote for the previous question.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Reschenthaler is as follows:

Amendment to House Resolution 1302

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the

House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the

bill (H.R. 471) to prohibit the Secretary of Health and Human

Services from lessening the stringency of, and to prohibit

the Secretary of Homeland Security from ceasing or lessening

implementation of, the COVID-19 border health provisions

through the end of the COV1D-19 pandemic, and for other

purposes. All points of order against consideration of the

bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All

points of order against provisions in the bill are waived.

The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the

bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without

intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally

divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority

member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce; and (2) one

motion to recommit.

Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H.R. 471.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think that we will spend most of our time here today where facts will be told and then rhetorical conversations will be told, as well.

Fact: The Constitution, in the Second Amendment, does not prohibit the ban on assault weapons.

Fact: H.R. 1808, led by Mr. Cicilline, allows gun owners to hold their guns. This deals with the transfer of guns.

Fact: As we can see, the lives of our children are lost through carnage, bloodshed, and murder--fact--by the hands of an AR-15, an assault-style weapon.

Fact: Our fellow citizens are killed by an AR-15, -14, an assault- style weapon.

Fact: Mass carnage is not done by a knife, a BB gun. It is not done by throwing a water bomb or words. It is not done by taking a bus and running over citizens. It is done by assault-style weapons.

So, I rise today to support H.R. 1808 because I am tired of a fact of doing nothing.

Mayor Bowser has a right to complain about Governor Abbott generating individuals unfairly, unjustly, and wrongly to another jurisdiction. But the fact is that these weapons have killed.

So, without any concern, we are now offering facts. Anyone that suggests that we are taking guns from good gun owners, we are not.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record three articles from The Washington Post, CBS News, and KXAN.

Uvalde Parents, Highland Park Survivors Demand Assault Weapons Ban

(By Ellie Silverman)

Kimberly Rubio keeps trying to picture the classroom

through her 10-year-old daughter Lexi's eyes, haunted by the

different ways that May day could have ended.

What side of the room did Lexi run toward with her

classmates, huddling and fearing for their lives? What if

Rubio had taken her daughter home earlier after an award

ceremony that day? What if the outside door locked properly?

What if police had immediately engaged the suspected gunman?

But the one question that lawmakers should ask themselves

every morning and night, she posed, was: ``What if the gunman

never had access to an assault weapon?''

``We are no longer asking for change,'' Rubio, 33, said to

a cheering crowd of about 200 people at the U.S. Capitol on

Wednesday. ``We are demanding it.''

Rubio was one of several people who spoke at a rally about

the ways gun violence had irreparably harmed their lives and

demanded a federal ban on assault weapons.

Those gathered wore bright orange shirts and included

community members from Highland Park, Ill., where a gunman

killed seven adults and injured dozens more during a Fourth

of July parade, and parents of children who were among the 21

people killed in May at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde,

Tex.

Rubio's daughter Alexandria Aniyah Rubio, known as Lexi,

was one of the children killed.

Many openly grieved at the rally, crying during Rubio's

remarks. A mother at the Highland Park parade recounted how

she fled, holding her 1-year-old daughter in her arms as she

was grazed by a bullet. Parents shared the terrifying

questions they're hearing from their young children who

survived shootings. And speaker after speaker demanded more

sweeping federal action to curb the scourge of gun violence.

Last month, President Biden signed a bipartisan gun-control

bill into law, the most significant of its kind in three

decades. It expands criminal background checks for some gun

buyers, bars a larger group of domestic-violence offenders

from purchasing firearms, and funds programs that would allow

authorities to seize guns from troubled individuals. However,

gun control advocates, and Biden himself, have noted that the

legislation does not include everything they hoped for.

During an event on the White House's South Lawn on Monday

billed as ``commemorating the historic achievement of the

passage of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act,'' the father

of a 17-year-old boy killed in the 2018 massacre at a high

school in Parkland, Fla., heckled the president. demanding

more action to curb gun violence. Biden renewed calls for a

federal ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition

magazines.

On Wednesday, mothers continued to step up to the lectern

near the grassy area by 1st and C streets NE and speak about

their children, friends and relatives who died of gun

violence and the ways survivors grapple with anxiety attacks,

fear and guilt. Democratic lawmakers from Illinois, including

Sen. Tammy Duckworth; Rep. Brad Schneider, whose district

includes Highland Park; and Rep. Jan Schakowsky, also spoke

at the rally before the crowd marched toward the Capitol.

Nubia Hogan, 45, stood among the crowd and held a poster

with a photo of her father, Eduardo Uvaldo.

Uvaldo was at the July Fourth parade with Hogan and their

relatives when gunfire rained on the crowd. The parade was a

family tradition and Uvaldo's favorite holiday, she said.

Hogan said she thought about how when gunfire erupted from

a nearby rooftop, she froze. Her son, Brian Hogan, 13, yelled

to run and the family tried to flee. A bullet hit Brian in

the arm and fragments hit Nubia Hogan's mother, too. Uvaldo

was also struck and was rushed to the hospital, where he died

two days later.

``I get anxiety really bad. I get nightmares, waking up to

hearing `boom boom' like the shots,'' said Nubia Hogan, of

Waukegan, Ill. ``These types of guns should not be out there

for civilians. These are for the military and for police.''

She plans to continue with activism around this issue,

joining the many other people who have channeled their grief

into advocacy for change. Thousands of people gathered

earlier this summer on the National Mall to join the rally

staged by March for Our Lives, the organization founded by

student survivors of the mass shooting in Parkland, where a

gunman killed 17 people.

Still, more than 115,000 students have been exposed to gun

violence on K-12 campuses during regular hours since the

Parkland massacre, according to a Washington Post database.

Brett Cross, 39, stood toward the back of the crowd and

said he thought about his nephew, 10-year-old Uziyah Garcia,

and how the ``system'' didn't protect his family and so many

others. The day of the shooting in Uvalde, his wife raced

over to the school where Cross said police pushed and blocked

parents from entering the building to save their children.

In the first classroom the gunman entered, Cross said, was

his nephew, ``Uzi,'' the young boy who was fast, always

racing people, and who aspired to make music, be a YouTuber

and one day become a police officer to help people.

``Those same cops that he looked up to failed him and his

classmates,'' Cross said.

His 10-year-old son and Uzi shared a room together but now,

his son doesn't want to be in there. Cross bought a cot and

placed it next to his bed, where the two hold hands before

falling asleep.

``He said he wanted to go to school that day so that he

could have done something,'' Cross said. ``He wants to know

why an 18-year-old kid can go buy these weapons, why it took

his brother from him.''

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote for H.R. 1808. That is a fact.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1808, the ``Assault Weapons Ban of 2022,'' that would prohibit the sale, manufacture, transfer, or possession of semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices.

Whether we call them assault weapons or AR-15 style weapons, we all know that we are talking about civilian versions of firearms created for the military.

Day after day, mass shooting after mass shooting, we are confronted with the carnage that is inflicted on the human body when these weapons of war are used against elementary-aged children, teachers, parade- goers, high school students, worshippers, shoppers, and on and on.

In America, gun violence is the leading cause of death among children while mass shootings occur ever increasingly each year.

It is no secret that I am adamantly opposed to assault weapons and large capacity magazines--implements designed for war. Neither belong in our communities.

Since the time I first joined my colleagues in the House in 2003 to extend the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, we have seen innumerable acts of violence and carnage perpetrated using assault weapons and large capacity magazines.

I have hugged far too many grieving spouses and friends, wiped away the tears of too many loved ones left behind to pick up the pieces, and offered condolences to countless communities across the country-- including my own.

There is no debating that when paired together, large capacity magazines and assault weapons perform as they were designed--killing more people quickly and efficiently.

We all know that the parents in Uvalde were asked to provide DNA swabs to identify their murdered children because they were unrecognizable. I am tired of seeing parents bury their children--tired of promising that we in Congress will remove these military-style weapons from our communities--then, returning and doing nothing.

H.R. 1808 will help gradually reduce the number of assault weapons and large capacity magazines available--keeping them out of the hands of criminals--while reducing the number of lives lost to gun violence, and making us all safer, the bill still recognizes that many Americans already own assault weapons and

large capacity magazines and provides ways in which they can keep their firearms, transfer them following a background check.

The evidence is clear. Bans work. During the 1994 federal assault weapons ban was in effect, mass shooting fatalities were 70 percent less likely to occur. And, when the large capacity ammunition feeding device ban was in place, there were 77 percent fewer injuries from guns.

In the past decade, gun makers have flooded the market with assault weapons, making over $1 billion in sales, but at a tragic cost to the rest of us.

From 2000 to 2004, the average number of people killed from active shooter incidents per year was 22. But from 2005 to 2021, the average number of people killed from active shooter incidents was 68.7.

We know the common denominator here--assault weapons and large capacity magazines--and H.R. 1808 is the solution. It is time to act.

H.R. 1808 is a necessary measure that will protect Americans and promote public safety. We should all be tired of bracing ourselves for the next attack on another unsuspecting gathering of Americans going about their daily lives or identifying the nearest exits as we sit and try to enjoy time with our loved ones or hearing children tell us about the active shooter drills they participate in at school or camp.

I thank Representative David Cicilline for his leadership on this important measure.

Examples of mass shootings involving assault weapons and/or large

capacity magazines

Uvalde, Texas--AR-15-style weapon killed 19 children; 2 teachers

Buffalo, New York--AR-15-style rifle killed 10 shoppers

Boulder, Colorado--Ruger AR-556 semi-automatic killed 10 people including a police officer

Dayton, Ohio--AR-15-style weapon equipped with a 100-round ammunition magazine to kill nine people and injure over 25 others in less than 30 seconds at a local bar

El Paso, Texas--AK-47-style weapon killed 22 at a Walmart.

Gilroy, Calif.--AK-47-style weapon wounded 17 and killed three including a 13-year-old girl and 6-year-old

Thousand Oaks, Calif.--Glock 21 .45-caliber pistol and several high- capacity ammunition magazines killed 12.

Pittsburgh, Pa.--AR-15-style weapon killed 11 worshipers. The deadliest anti-Semitic attack committed against the Jewish community in America.

Parkland, Fla.--M&P15 AR-15 military style rifle; killed 17 students and educators.

Sutherland Springs, Texas--Ruger AR-556 Rifle; killed 26 churchgoers.

Las Vegas, Nev.--Shooter with more than 20 assault style weapons and 12 bump-fire stocks killed 58 people and wounded over 500 others.

Orlando, Fla.--Sig Sauer MCX assault rifle killed 49 and wounded 58. The deadliest incident of violence against LGBT people in our nation's history.

Newtown, Conn.--Bushmaster semiautomatic assault killed 26 people including 20 children.

Aurora, Colo.--Smith & Wesson M&P15 semiautomatic assault-style rifle with a 100-round ammunition drum and other firearms killed 12 people and injured 58.

Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, the rule before us today makes in order H.R. 1808, an unconstitutional bill to ban hundreds of the most popular firearms in the United States, including the sporting rifle, the AR-15.

Law-abiding Americans in places like southwestern Pennsylvania and across the country use firearms every single day for things like sport shooting, hunting, and self-defense. So despite what the House Democrats claim, this bill would do little to prevent the mass shootings or the crime they are saying that it would, and this bill would not prevent criminals from obtaining firearms.

I know the chairman just referenced a 1994 study. That was a congressionally mandated study to look at the 1994 assault weapons ban. That study found that ban was ineffective in reducing violent crime. ``The banned guns were never used in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders.''

A follow-up study to that 1994 ban came out in 2004, and that study found that ``the ban's effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.''

Even UCLA law professor Adam Winkler, the resident anti-gun, so- called subject matter expert, a left-leaning professor, stated: ``There's no way to make assault rifle bans effective.''

To that point, we saw that during the tragic shootings in San Bernardino, Newtown, and Buffalo, those all occurred in States that already had assault weapons bans on the books.

So the question is this: Why are my far-left Democratic colleagues bringing this bill to the floor today?

Well, in the words of Committee on the Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, `` . . . banning these `common use' firearms is the `point of the bill.' ''

In other words, let's call this what it is. It is a gun grab, pure and simple.

This bill is not about public safety. Rather, this is the most severe restriction on the Second Amendment since the passage of the assault weapons ban of 1994. It would turn an American lending a firearm to a friend to go hunting into a criminal.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

This false equivalence between an AR-15 and a so-called weapon of war just shows the ignorance of my friends on the other side of the aisle.

An AR-15 is not an M16. An M16 has numerous functions: safety, three- round bursts, semi-automatic, and fully automatic. An AR-15 has no such setting as a three-round burst and the fully automatic. So this false comparison between a so-called weapon of war and what we would describe as sporting rifle, again, shows the lack of understanding about these platforms.

Additionally, the AR-15 is by far the most popular sporting rifle in the United States. There are over 20 million that are in the possession of Americans right now.

But while we are talking about statistics, a 2020 FBI study shows that there are more murders committed with knives, clubs, and fists than with firearms.

Also, when you are looking at firearm deaths, just in the year 2020, both the CDC and the FBI reported that over half of these firearm- related deaths were suicides. So let's just be clear when we are talking about statistics.

If you are breaking down those studies, you can look at 2020, where 59 percent of murders were committed by handguns. Only 3 percent were committed with what is being described as assault rifles, what I would describe as sporting rifles.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), my good friend from the Committee on Rules, who is here to talk more about this issue.

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

I just want it noted that the gentleman from Massachusetts said that no one on his side is describing these weapons as ``weapons of war,'' and then the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), the first thing he said was that AR-15s are ``weapons are war.''

So, we need to understand that when the left and when radical Democrats are describing AR-15s as ``weapons of war,'' and as the gentleman from Texas just said, ``machine guns,'' they are doing two things simultaneously. Number one, they are showing their absolute ignorance for how these platforms operate; and two, they are deliberately trying to mislead the American people on what these platforms do.

No one on my side of the aisle is trying to say that machine guns should be legal. An AR-15 is a sporting rifle; it is a semiautomatic. It is not the kind of platform that is used by the military. It is not an M16, it is not an M4; but, again, the other side tries to use this to muddy the waters and confuse the American people and to put all firearms in the same category.

Let's talk about some more statistics. In 2021, a Georgetown study found that 1.67 million instances were found where firearms were used in self-defense. In 2019 alone, there were 386 self-defense killings that were determined to be justified. So, these are just some of the ways in which someone can legally use a sporting rifle.

Let's talk about the chaos at the southern border. Since Joe Biden took office, over 3.1 million illegal immigrants have been apprehended at the southern border, and that includes 56 illegal immigrants who were on the terror watch list.

President Biden and House Democrats have this open-door policy that has created a humanitarian crisis and a security crisis, as well, and they want to make things worse by lifting title 42.

Republicans know border security is national security. That is why if we defeat the previous question, I will personally offer an amendment to the rule to immediately consider H.R. 471, the PAUSE Act of 2021, to enforce title 42.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), my good friend, to explain the amendment.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my colleague from Texas, but when the question is asked why servicemembers can't bring their M16s and their M4s home, it is because those are fully automatic weapons. They are not AR-15s.

The gentlewoman actually answers her own question. The M16 and the M4 platform are automatic. The AR-15 is not automatic. They are two different platforms.

The gentlewoman and the gentleman from Texas said words to the effect of, ``What are we doing? Why are Republicans not doing enough?'' or words to that effect.

Well, let me remind my colleagues across the aisle that it was Republicans, not Democrats, it was Republicans in 2017 that had the Fix NICS Act. It is Republicans that are trying to get legislation passed to keep guns

out of the hands of criminals, not out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. It was the last administration under President Trump that banned bump stocks when the Obama administration let that ban expire.

Those are just a few things that Republicans are doing in this arena.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), my good friend.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Hice), my good friend.

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

Whether it is Pennsylvania or Massachusetts, they are still two great Commonwealths, right?

Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers at this time, and I yield myself the balance of my time for closing.

Madam Speaker, I am incredibly disappointed but, unfortunately, not at all surprised that, once again, we are considering legislation that will do nothing more than penalize law-abiding citizens while doing absolutely nothing about the root cause of gun violence.

We know from history, and we know from numerous studies that I have talked about today, that assault weapons bans do not work.

So, why is this bill coming before us today? It is just the latest in the House Democrats' never-ending attack on America's Second Amendment rights.

Madam Speaker, I, therefore, urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and vote ``no'' on the rule.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, for years, the Democrats told us: We are not coming for your guns.

Oh, yes, they are.

Let's be clear. The Second Amendment is as clear as possible. That is their beef. The Second Amendment says: The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But they don't care.

In fact, the sponsor of this legislation said so in committee. He said: ``Spare me the BS about constitutional rights.'' They don't care about that fundamental liberty law-abiding citizens in this country enjoy, and they are coming for your firearms.

Six weeks ago, it was the red flag law, where someone who doesn't like you can report you to law enforcement or to a judge. There is a hearing that you can't be at, your counsel can't be present, you haven't been charged with a crime, but they can take your firearm, they can take your property, they can take away your Second Amendment liberties, and then you have to petition for a subsequent hearing to get that right back. And you have done nothing wrong and have not been charged with a crime.

Then House Democrats passed the unconstitutional legislation that said 18- to 20-year-olds can't purchase a firearm. They can fight for our country, but they can't purchase a firearm. And today they are coming for your guns, 24 million of them.

That is right, 24 million AR-style rifles are in the hands of law- abiding Americans today, as we speak, and those individuals will not be able to sell or transfer that property.

In the Heller case, the Supreme Court made clear that the Second Amendment protects firearms in common use at the time. During the markup, Representative Bishop asked the chairman: ``Is it the point of the bill to ban weapons that are in common use in the United States today?'' And the chairman said: ``The problem is that they are in common use.''

So, yes, this is the goal. This is why it is unconstitutional. Couldn't be any clearer. Democrats don't care what the Constitution says.

Fortunately, courts are correctly applying the Constitution. Last week, a Federal District Court judge in Colorado, who was appointed by President Obama, issued a temporary restraining order against the Town of Superior, Colorado, to prevent it from implementing an assault weapon ban.

The judge wrote: Plaintiffs have stated that semiautomatic weapons, as well as magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, are commonly used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes and, therefore, cannot be banned.

And guess what this bill will do? It won't make communities safer. It won't make them safer at all. In fact, in the Heller case, the Supreme Court said: The Second Amendment protects firearms in common use at the time and also said ``for lawful purposes like self-defense.''

Three weeks ago, July 7, 2022, a Florida homeowner used his AR-style rifle when individuals forcibly entered his home. After the homeowner opened fire, the individuals immediately fled. When asked if the homeowner would face charges, the Escambia County Sheriff Chip Simmons said: Absolutely not. The homeowner is protecting himself. And in Florida, you can do that. You can protect yourself.

Democrats tried this ban before. It didn't work. It won't work now.

You know what it will do? It will make communities, I think, less safe. What will make communities safer, though, is if Democrats stop defunding the police, stop cashless bail, and start prosecuting criminals. They are taking away firearms used for self-defense by law- abiding Americans.

This bill is wrong. It will make communities, I think, less safe, and it is unconstitutional.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford).

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

Mr. Speaker, here is the fact. This bill is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court made clear the Second Amendment protects firearms in common use. This bill has eight pages of weapons and firearms that it bans, including 24 million firearms that law- abiding American citizens possess today. That is the fact.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cline).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Clyde).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie), the chair of the Second Amendment Caucus.

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Kentucky.

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

We haven't said the Second Amendment was unlimited. We quoted the Second Amendment, the Second Amendment which the Supreme Court has said protects firearms in common use. Twenty-four million Americans have these weapons. That is most certainly common use.

The fact that the chair of the Judiciary Committee says, I don't care, we are going to do it even though we know it is unconstitutional, that is just wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington), my friend.

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

I would just say, if the gentlewoman from Ohio wants to come to the Fourth District of Ohio and debate me on the Second Amendment, I would welcome her to come to my district anytime she wants to. She can stand here and lecture all she wants, but I would welcome her to come to my district. I would be happy to debate her.

My guess is the constituents I get the privilege of representing, most of them probably agree with me and agree with the United States Constitution.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, red flag laws take all guns from some people. This bill makes illegal some guns for all people, and we know where they want to go. We know what they want to do. They want to take all guns from all people because they can't stand the Second Amendment. They hate the Second Amendment.

In fact, during the markup, the sponsor of the legislation said this: ``Spare me the BS about constitutional rights.''

Well, Republicans care about law-abiding citizens' constitutional liberties: Their First Amendment rights, their Second Amendment rights, their Fourth Amendment due process rights. All of those have been attacked by the Democrats over the last several months.

That is why we should vote ``no'' on this legislation and let law- abiding Americans have the respect for the Second Amendment they deserve.

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

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