Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding time.

The Democrats today describe this Senate bill as a step forward. If you are saving lives, it is a step backward, folks. If you are banning guns, it is a small step forward. Yes, in fact, it is.

Almost everybody on the other side of the aisle today said, it doesn't go far enough. What do they mean? Well, it is a red flag law bill, and they want to take all of the guns from some of the people.

It doesn't go far enough for them because it doesn't yet take all of the guns from all of the people. That is their goal.

Who has taken a step forward, which institution, which branch of government? Well, actually, if you are counting how many lives are going to be saved, you have to consider that the Supreme Court is the institution, the branch of government, that has taken two steps forward in the last 48 hours to save lives.

One of those steps was to reaffirm the Heller decision that men and

women in this country have the right to defend their own lives.

The second step taken today was to affirm that the State legislatures have the right to defend the lives of the unborn.

This bill is ineffective, unconstitutional, and ill-conceived without consideration for the dangerous unintended consequences.

Did the drafters consider that changing the definition of ``gun dealer'' to be more ambiguous is going to make every American a gun dealer when they transfer a gun to a friend or a family member?

Did the Senators consider in their sleep deprivation when they drafted this bill hurriedly, late at night, that using childhood mental health records as a basis for denying adults their basic rights to self-defense is going to discourage many parents from seeking mental health care for their children?

If children who need it go without mental health care and early intervention, their conditions will grow worse. We will see more suicides, and we will see more mass shootings. Unfortunately and inevitably, this bill will cost more lives than it will save.

Red flag laws are going to have the same effect that considering mental health care for children will have. People will not seek mental health care, and we will see more damage to the American public.

If politicians here were serious--and they are not serious. They are going to come back. They will be back.

You will be back here in 6 months, a year. You will want another bite at the apple to ban guns because this bill won't do it. This bill won't do what you say.

If you were serious, you would acknowledge that 96 percent of mass public shootings happen in an area where guns are banned, and they would repeal the prohibitions that keep law-abiding citizens from exercising their God-given rights enshrined in the Second Amendment.

Madam Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Jim Jordan for yielding the time.

You know, I find it interesting that all across the country, Democrats are moving to defund the police. Here, today in Congress, we have a bill called the Active Shooter Alert Act of 2022.

Well, if they defund the police, a more appropriate title for this bill would be the you are on your own act of 2022. Yes, that is right. We think you are in danger, but nobody is coming to help you because we have defunded the police.

But what does this bill really do? You know, if it were anything other than an attempt to demonize guns, to panic people, it would cover things like stabbing, car violence. How come we never hear about car violence? It would cover all violence, but they have chosen to single out the Second Amendment and firearms.

The technology already exists to do this, and the States that want to do it have already done it, and the campuses across the country that want to do it have implemented this a decade ago.

So, why are we doing this at the Federal level? What is the purpose to take what would have been good ideas at the State level, bring them up here, launder them, and then go tell the States how they have to do it, even though they are already doing it in many cases?

What good does a one-size-fits-all bill do when you dictate from

So why are they passing a law to do something that is already being done? Well, they want to take Federal control, and then what are they going to do with that Federal control? They want to panic and scare the general public with their phones. Everybody has got one today. You won't be able to turn it off.

Oh, no. Be afraid of a gun. Be afraid of a gun. Here is another alert. Be afraid of a gun.

That is so they can advance their other agenda, their real agenda, which is to ban all guns and to effectively repeal the Second Amendment.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Everyone wants to stop mass public shooters, but we haven't previously punished people merely on the basis of a hunch, and we shouldn't start now.

Stopping future crimes doesn't work in the movies, and it doesn't work in real life. What can work is providing mental healthcare and counseling to those who need it.

If people truly pose a clear danger to themselves or others, they should be confined to a mental health facility. Simply denying them the legal right to buy a gun isn't a serious remedy.

Actually, it is already possible to take a dangerous person's guns away, but Democrats are completely ignoring involuntary commitment laws that are on the books in all 50 States, presently known as the Baker Act in Florida or the 5150 code in California. These laws are different than the ones that are proposed today in one very important aspect: They involve due process.

What is the difference? In the existing involuntary commitment laws, known as the Baker Act, there is a mental healthcare expert involved; there is no such thing in the red flag laws. There is the ability to challenge your accuser to have a day in court before your rights are deprived; there is no such opportunity in the red flag laws. You get an attorney appointed to you if you can't afford it; no such thing in the red flag laws in many of the States. There are predawn raids that endanger the lives, not just of the person we are worried about but of the officers who are tasked with carrying out the raid.

Red flag laws could actually increase the rate of homicide and suicide. Simply talking to other people about your healthcare issues and your mental health could help you overcome it, but people will be reluctant to do that if red flag laws are in place.

Red flag laws have already created thousands of second-class citizens who no longer have the ability to purchase a firearm for defense in the States that have red flag laws. If this passes today, there will be millions of second-class citizens created in this country who have been deprived of due process and the Second Amendment.

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.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia, and I appreciate his unwavering support for the Second Amendment.

Madam Speaker, I rise today because, just last week, our President of this country spoke about using the nuclear option. He wasn't talking about getting rid of the 60-vote rule in the Senate. He was actually contemplating a nuclear conflagration with the citizens of this country, with the patriots of this country. He said they should get F- 15s and nuclear weapons if they wanted to keep this government in check.

Those aren't the words of George Washington. Those would be the words of King George.

Imagine if a dictator--just imagine the dictator of North Korea or the despot who runs Iran had muttered or stuttered or uttered these words like our President would and did. There would be an international outcry today to have that dictator removed.

We need to hold our chief executive accountable for these words. And our chief executive of this country would do well to understand what the Second Amendment is really about. It is about keeping an overzealous executive in check. It is about securing all of the other liberties in this constitution. It is about the patriots who are willing to tell the government: We are in charge.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to end the war in Iraq. That is right, it is still going on. The 2002 AUMF that authorized military force in the Iraq war is still active, but today we will be voting on it, and it is long past due for us to vote on it. The original text of the 2002 AUMF was disturbingly broad and authorizes the United States military to enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions.

We have wasted $750 million on the world's largest embassy in Iraq. When we get out of Iraq, it is time to put a for sale sign on that embassy. We may get only pennies on the dollar for that embassy, but that is better than sacrificing lives. We don't want another Libya; we don't want another Benghazi to happen in Iraq. It is time to scale down the embassy, put what is there for sale, and bring our troops and our diplomats home.

Saddam Hussein's regime was defeated in 2003. That is 18 years ago. Obama declared the Iraq war ended in 2011. But the AUMF was never repealed, and it gives a blank check to any current or subsequent administration to keep American soldiers in Iraq indefinitely and puts us at risk of getting into another war if things escalate.

By 2013, a majority of Americans believed that the Iraq war was a mistake. Approximately 4,586 U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq, lost their lives since the beginning of the war, and 32,000 have been seriously wounded or injured in Iraq since the start of the war.

Although it is hard to know the estimated number of civilian casualties during this period of time in Iraq, it is somewhere between 800,000 and 1.3 million civilians. Think about that. A million civilians have died in this conflict.

It is time for us to leave. We owe it to our soldiers. They signed up to protect our country. They didn't sign up to be the world's policemen.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this repeal of the 2002 Iraq AUMF today.

Madam Speaker, I fully support creating a day to celebrate the abolition of slavery, a dark portion of our Nation's history. However, naming this day National Independence Day will create confusion and push Americans to pick one of those 2 days as their Independence Day based on their racial identity.

Why can't we name this Emancipation Day and come together as Americans and celebrate that day together as Americans?

Black and White--all colors, all races, and all ethnicities--can then come together on Independence Day, which celebrates the creation of our country, throwing off an oppressive government, and come together as Black, White, and all races to celebrate that day, too?

Why ask Americans to pick one of the two Independence Days to celebrate? I think it is wrong to do that.

I think this day is misnamed. I do support creating a holiday and recognizing that wonderful day and that wonderful time when we got rid of slavery in this country. But let's celebrate both of those days: Independence Day

and the day that we celebrate emancipation and ridding our country of slavery. Let's celebrate those 2 days together as one Nation under God indivisible.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of my constituents, Ernie Edison West, who passed from this life on May 1. His fellow soldiers knew him as Private First Class West. His friends knew him as Ernie. Mr. West bravely served his country during the Korean War, and his heroic actions earned him our Nation's highest military honors, including both a Medal of Honor from President Eisenhower, and later a Purple Heart.

Although Mr. West lost one of his eyes while defending and saving the lives of several of his fellow soldiers in Korea, he never considered himself disabled. As a town mayor, coach, friend, and mentor to many, Mr. West was an unconditional friend to all he met, and lived a life of selfless service to his community. He worked all his life to help veterans and was buried in the very cemetery, the Veterans Cemetery North East in Greenup County, for which he, himself, worked to secure the land and the funding. Mr. West's efforts were also crucial to the establishment of the Greenup County War Memorial. This memorial honors hometown heroes on the main street of Mr. West's hometown in Wurtland, Kentucky.

Mr. West leaves behind his daughter, Amy West Hogsett and her husband, Randy; five granddaughters; and seven great-grandchildren. In the words of his niece, Marny Gilluly, Mr. West was ``larger than life, truly a hero to many, and personified the good in people.'' May this brave hero rest in peace.

Madam Speaker, wow, the rhetoric is hot today. Bigotry, xenophobia, Muslim ban, racism, discrimination. This is what is coming from the left side of the aisle.

They say that Biden rescinded Trump's Muslim ban--that he has rescinded the Muslim ban. I want to ask them: Which Muslim ban are they talking about? Which one are they talking about? Are they talking about the one they voted for?

By the way, I think it is inappropriate to call it a ``Muslim ban.'' But let's use their language. Are they talking about the bill that 165 of them voted for, including the chairman of this committee, the author of this bill, and the chairwoman of the subcommittee?

Are they talking about the bill that they all voted for in 2015 that Obama signed into law called the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015? I don't think Trump was President in 2015. Obama signed this bill.

What did it do? It named four countries, not seven. We will get to the seven later. It named four countries to ban.

What were those four countries? By the way, the ACLU was not happy about this when Obama and the Democrats on the other side of the aisle did it. Iraq, Syria, Iran, and Sudan.

And now the Democrats are complaining that the President has too much power to protect this country, and they want to take some of this back, but they gave Obama the power to add three more countries. What were the three he added? Libya, Somalia, and Yemen in 2016. Interesting.

So where does that bring us to? It gets us to seven countries. Did they overlap or are they maybe five of the same countries? It is the seven exact same countries that the Democrats voted for that everybody over on the other side of the aisle who is hurling these claims of xenophobia voted for. Those same seven countries are now in and on the website at the State Department that Joe Biden runs.

Now, what does this do? Again, I want to be clear. It is not a total ban. But, by the way, Trump's wasn't either. It was a temporary suspension. But what they have done, and what Joe Biden perpetuates on these same seven countries--this is not a Muslim ban, but he is doing it to the same seven countries, perpetuating the Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015, he is saying you can't get a visa waiver if you are from one of those seven countries.

Now which is worse? I mean, you can say, okay, it is not racist to just make it harder to travel, if we do it for 5 years or do it forever, that is not racist or xenophobic. But if you do it for six months, like Trump proposed, 180 days, well, now that is racist right there.

This is so ridiculous. I can't even believe they have the audacity to pretend they didn't vote in 2015 to add these seven countries.

Let's just get back to protecting this country. Let's not use these bills and these provisions to say that one side is racist, or one side is xenophobic, or you are a bunch of bigots. President Obama was not xenophobic when he put these seven countries on his list, because they were the seven countries that the Democrats on the other side of the aisle chose. They are the seven countries that Obama chose.

I say, let's protect this country and get back to working together.

[From the State Department website]

Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of

2015

Under the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist

Travel Prevention Act of 2015, travelers in the following

categories must obtain a visa prior to traveling to the

United States as they are no longer eligible to travel under

the Visa Waiver Program (VWP):

Nationals of VWP countries who have traveled to or been

present in Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Iran, Iraq,

Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, or Yemen on or after March 1,

2011 (with limited exceptions for travel for diplomatic or

military purposes in the service of a VWP country).

Nationals of VWP countries who are also nationals of

Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or

Syria.

These individuals can apply for visas using regular

appointment processes at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate. For

those who require a visa for urgent travel to the United

States, U.S. Embassies and Consulates stand ready to handle

applications on an expedited basis.

If an individual who is exempt from the Act because of his

or her diplomatic or military presence in one of the seven

countries has his or her ESTA denied, he or she may go to the

CSP website, or contact the CSP information Center. The

traveler may also apply for a nonimmigrant visa at a U.S.

Embassy or Consulate.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection strongly recommends that

any traveler to the United States check his or her ESTA

status prior to making any travel reservations or travelling

to the United States. More information is available on the

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) website.

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

Mr. Speaker, Democrats today want to introduce gun control legislation that they say is going to make you safer. They want to expand background checks.

But what do background checks accomplish?

Well, the DOJ said there were 112,000 denials in a year.

Who were those 112,000 people?

Well, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would have you think those were felons, they saved you from those felons.

But how many of those 112,000 were prosecuted for that crime of trying to acquire that gun?

According to the DOJ, 12--1-2--12 in a year.

Who were the other 100,000?

Imagine, just imagine now that you are the victim of an abusive relationship and after 5 years you have summoned the courage and the resources to separate from that relationship, but things have escalated and now you have decided that it is time to acquire the means to protect you and your children. So you go to the gun store and you try to buy a gun. The clerk presses the computer button, and it says ``denied.''

You ask the clerk, ``Why was it denied?''

The clerk says, ``I don't know. This happens sometimes. Maybe you had a similar name to somebody else in the database.''

You can't buy a gun today, tomorrow, next week. Not ever. You have

been denied. So you go to a friend you have known for a long time. Your friend says, ``I would like to help you.''

You say, ``Well, I don't know if I am going to make it through the night.''

Your friend says, ``I would like to help you, but don't you know H.R. 8 passed and it was signed by the President. I can't spend a year in a cage. Good luck tonight.''

Mr. Speaker, now, I am not going to ask you to imagine what happens next because the Democrats saw fit to put into this bill a requirement that you have an imminent threat of death. The threat has to be right there upon you or great bodily harm.

What do they say?

Well, if you are just expecting a few bruises and maybe a punch, put some ice on it.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask my colleagues here today and I am going to challenge the sponsors of this bill and those of them who might think they would vote for this bill to consider whether it is fair.

Is it fair to surround yourself with armed guards, with Capitol Hill Police who have guns, with personal details, bodyguards, and ask the people to pay for it when you make it harder for those same people to protect themselves?

I don't think that is fair.

And for the fact checkers who are already hard at work on this speech, I include in the Record this GAO report on the DOJ statistics on background checks.

[From the United States Government Accountability Office, Sept. 2018]

Report to the Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, House of

Representatives

Law Enforcement--Few Individuals Denied Firearms Purchases Are

Prosecuted and ATF Should Assess Use of Warning Notices in Lieu of

Prosecutions

why gao did this study

In 2017, approximately 25.6 million firearm-related

background checks were processed through NICS, and about

181,000 of the attempted purchases at the federal and state

levels combined were denied because the individual was

prohibited from possessing a firearm under federal or state

law. Individuals who certify that they are not prohibited

from purchasing or receiving a firearm and are subsequently

determined to be prohibited could be subject to

investigation, and if prosecuted, a fine, imprisonment, or

both.

GAO was asked to examine firearms denials. This report (1)

describes the extent to which federal and selected state law

enforcement agencies investigate and prosecute firearms

denial cases; (2) examines related challenges faced by these

agencies; and (3) describes the circumstances that lead to

investigations and prosecutions. GAO reviewed laws and

regulations; analyzed federal and state data from 2011

through 2017; and interviewed officials from ATF

headquarters, 6 of 25 ATF field divisions (the 6 that

investigated the most cases), and the 13 states that process

all NICS checks within their state. Results from state

interviews are not generalizable but provide insights on

state practices.

what gao recommends

GAO recommends that ATF assess the extent to which ATF

field divisions use warning notifications as an enforcement

tool, which would inform whether changes to policy are

needed. DOJ concurred with GAO's recommendation.

what gao found

Investigations and prosecutions. Federal and selected state

law enforcement agencies that process firearm-related

background checks through the National Instant Criminal

Background Check System (NICS) collectively investigate and

prosecute a small percentage of individuals who falsify

information on a firearms form (e.g., do not disclose a

felony conviction) and are denied a purchase. Federal NICS

checks resulted in about 112,000 denied transactions in

fiscal year) 2017, of which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,

Firearms and Explosives (ATF) referred about 12,700 to its

field divisions for further investigation. U.S. Attorney's

Offices (USAO) had prosecuted 12 of these cases as of June

2018.

Mr. Speaker, I have a brief point to make. I wonder how my colleagues on the other side of the aisle hold two thoughts in contradiction simultaneously in their minds. They say that photo IDs and excessive registration paperwork and whatnot disenfranchises disproportionately minorities and the poor when they go to exercise their right to vote. But today with H.R. 8 and the next bill that is coming up, they are doing exactly that. They are causing there to be increased fees, increased paperwork, and more photo IDs.

How does that not disenfranchise not just all Americans but disproportionately minorities and the poor?

Mr. Speaker, I leave that to my colleagues to answer today.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I object.

Madam Speaker, reserving the right to object, if the Speaker of this House felt that this was must-pass legislation, the Speaker of this House should have called for a vote on this bill before sending every Member of Congress on recess for 10 days, and I object.