[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 26, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H2119-H2128]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 8, BIPARTISAN BACKGROUND CHECKS ACT 
    OF 2019, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1112, ENHANCED 
                     BACKGROUND CHECKS ACT OF 2019

  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 145 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 145

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 8) to require a background check for every 
     firearm sale. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in 
     the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original 
     bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule 
     an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
     text of Rules Committee Print 116-5. That amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All 
     points of order against that amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute are waived. No amendment to that amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed 
     in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be 
     offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion 
     of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee 
     shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
     amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a 
     separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the 
     Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute made in order as original text. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2.  At any time after adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     1112) to amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to 
     strengthen the background check procedures to be followed 
     before a Federal firearms licensee may transfer a firearm to 
     a person who is not such a licensee. The first reading of the 
     bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and amendments specified in this section 
     and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled 
     by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     the Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu 
     of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
     the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill, an 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
     text of Rules Committee Print 116-6 shall be considered as 
     adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The 
     bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill 
     for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute 
     rule and shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. No 
     further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in order 
     except those printed in part B of the report of the Committee 
     on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such further 
     amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
     report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against such further 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill, as amended, to the House with such further 
     amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and 
     on any further amendment thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), 
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.

                              {time}  1330


                             General Leave

  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be 
given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, 
House Resolution 145, providing for consideration of H.R. 8, the 
Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, and H.R. 1112, the Enhanced 
Background Checks Act of 2019.
  The rule provides for consideration of each bill under a structured 
rule. The rule also provides 1 hour of general debate on each bill 
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  The Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019 and the Enhanced 
Background Checks Act of 2019 arrived at a time of emergency for 
America--a real emergency. Every year 120,000 Americans are shot in our 
country, and 35,000 of them are shot dead. Seventeen thousand of the 
people wounded or killed each year are children or teenagers, their 
families devastated, their lives forever changed.
  In 2017, gun deaths in America hit the highest level in 40 years, 
with 40,000 Americans killed.
  We have lost more Americans to gun violence in our own communities 
than to the Vietnam war, the Revolutionary

[[Page H2120]]

War, the Civil War, World War I, World War II, the Korean war, the Iraq 
war, and the Afghan war, combined. This war at home never stops. Each 
day--yesterday, today, and tomorrow--another 100 people in America are 
shot and killed by gun violence.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not a global problem; it is an American problem. 
While 35,000 Americans are killed by gunfire here each year, it is 146 
people in the United Kingdom, 142 in Portugal, and 30 in Japan.
  We lose more people to gun violence in a single weekend than England 
loses all year. We lost more people in the Las Vegas massacre alone, in 
one bloody night, than the nation of Japan lost to gun violence in 8 
years.
  No other developed, high-income country's lethal gun violence even 
comes close to the American carnage allowed by our loophole-ridden gun 
laws. The gun-related murder rate in the United States is 25 times 
higher than the average of other high-income countries and hundreds of 
times higher than some of them.
  Now, the good news is that we know what to do to begin to end this 
crisis. We must close the loopholes.
  In 1994, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act went into effect 
and required licensed firearm dealers to contact the FBI to run a 
background check through NICS, the National Instant Criminal Background 
Check System.
  The Brady Act made it illegal to sell a firearm to felons, to 
fugitives, to people who had been committed to mental institutions, to 
drug addicts, to domestic abusers, to undocumented immigrants, and to 
other disqualified categories.
  The Brady Act worked as far as it went. It stopped more than 3 
million illegal purchases of firearms by convicted felons, violently 
abusive partners, fugitives, the mentally ill, and so on. But there are 
gaping loopholes in the law because unlicensed gun sellers, the people 
who sell guns online today or at gun shows or in other private 
transactions, can sell firearms without having to run any background 
check whatsoever.
  More than one-fifth of U.S. gun owners acquired their most recent 
firearm without any background check at all, which means that millions 
of people obtained millions of firearms without going through the Brady 
system, and people who commit gun crimes overwhelmingly obtain their 
firearms from the unlicensed sources. A 2013 study found that 80 
percent of all firearms acquired for criminal purposes were obtained 
from sources that were not required to go through the background check.
  The criminals are not stupid. They follow the loopholes. They go to 
the internet. They go to the gun shows. They go to the convenience 
store parking lots to get their weapons of mass destruction without any 
background check at all.
  Our legislation will close these dangerous loopholes by guaranteeing 
that there is a thorough NICS background check on every gun sale or 
transfer, with only a few carefully defined exceptions for intrafamily 
gifts and a few other cases.
  Mr. Speaker, there are three primary things you need to know about 
this legislation:
  First, it is backed by more than 90 percent of the American people--
fully, 97 percent of Americans, including 97 percent of gun owners, 97 
percent of Republicans, and 99 percent of Democrats. It is the very 
essence of common sense, the sense we all have in common, to make the 
background check system comprehensive and universal, leakproof, 
foolproof, and not ridden by the loopholes.
  A background check doesn't work if criminals know that there are 
massive and lawful ways to cheat and get around it. So America, today, 
stands up to close the loopholes, and that is why this is a day of 
great triumph for the gun safety movement that has swept America in 
response to Parkland, Las Vegas, Newtown, and the other massacres that 
our people have endured.
  Second, this legislation is perfectly constitutional. As Justice 
Scalia found for the Supreme Court in the District of Columbia v. 
Heller decision, the Second Amendment permits reasonable regulation to 
exclude from gun ownership violent felons, the mentally unstable, and 
so on.
  Despite all of the solemn invocations of the Second Amendment that we 
continue to hear bouncing off of the walls of Congress, the opponents 
of this legislation could not muster a single witness to actually argue 
that this legislation is unconstitutional, and that includes the George 
Mason University Antonin Scalia School of Law professor of 
constitutional law and the Second Amendment who was brought in and just 
expressed her policy misgivings about the bill without articulating any 
constitutional analysis at all and rejected the opportunity to say that 
this legislation is unconstitutional.

  The reason 97 percent of Americans favor this legislation is because 
it is perfectly consistent with the letter and spirit of the Second 
Amendment, and it sweepingly advances public safety at the same time.
  Third, this bill will dramatically lower gun violence in America. 
More than 90 percent of Brady background checks take less than 90 
seconds to complete. But these checks have literally stopped more than 
3 million illegal gun purchases by felons, fugitives, domestic 
offenders, the violently mentally ill, undocumented aliens, and so on. 
Every day, background checks stop 170 felons and 50 domestic abusers 
from purchasing a gun. Imagine how much more effective this system will 
be when we close these gaping loopholes.
  Yet, even in the face of the shocking death toll which distinguishes 
our society from the other wealthy societies on Earth, despite the 
overwhelming public support for this legislation, and despite its clear 
constitutionality, our friends across the aisle oppose closing the 
internet, the gun show, and the private sale loopholes.
  Instead of getting on our side to close the loopholes, what do they 
give us? More loopholes. They brought us dozens of amendments to try to 
suggest more loopholes to the current law.
  That is obviously not the direction that America needs to go in, and 
you will hear some more about that today, Mr. Speaker. They have given 
us a veritable loophole factory. But now is the time to close 
loopholes, not reproduce them.
  Let's focus on the public safety, which is the cardinal purpose of 
law in the social contract in a democratic society. Let's pass this 
excellent bill, and let's pass H.R. 1112, the Enhanced Background 
Checks Act of 2019, which closes the Charleston loophole, the loophole 
that made it possible for a guy to go out and get a gun because the 
dealer decided to give him a gun after 3 days because they were still 
doing a background check.
  This loophole says that if it has taken 3 days or more, you have a 
right to go ahead and get your gun. We are going to close that one, the 
so-called default proceed provision. We are going to close that one, 
too, so that we don't see any repeat massacres like the one that took 
place in June of 2015 at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church 
in Charleston, South Carolina.
  I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I thank Mr. Raskin for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, all of us, Republicans and Democrats, want to reduce gun 
violence. I think there is just a difference of opinion on how we get 
there.
  Unfortunately, H.R. 8 and H.R. 1112, although well-intentioned, will 
not reduce gun violence as Mr. Raskin said, and instead it will turn 
everyday, law-abiding individuals into criminals and could actually do 
more harm than good.
  I grew up in a family that didn't have guns. After my dad returned 
from World War II, he stopped hunting. So, because I wasn't around 
them, I have to admit I had an irrational fear of guns for awhile. It 
wasn't until I became an adult that I got educated.
  I remember I first went to a debate where the person who was talking 
for gun rights said: Do you know who follows the laws? Law-abiding 
people follow the laws. Who doesn't follow the laws? Criminals do not 
follow the laws.
  So although well-intentioned, often laws are unenforceable, and 
criminals just do not follow them.
  H.R. 8, again, I believe is well-intentioned. But it will not solve 
the problem. H.R. 8 would not have prevented any of the mass shootings 
in the last 20 years, not one of them.

[[Page H2121]]

  I studied them because I am on the Judiciary Committee along with Mr. 
Raskin, and we heard this bill in that committee. In most cases, guns 
were obtained legally. Recent attackers have passed background checks 
to acquire their firearms, including the attackers at the Thousand 
Oaks, California, shooting; the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, 
Pennsylvania shooting; the attacker in the Marjory Stoneman Douglas 
High School, Parkland, Florida, shooting; the shooting at the Pulse 
nightclub in Orlando, Florida; and the Las Vegas, Nevada, shooting. 
None of these attacks would have been prevented if H.R. 8 or H.R. 1112 
were law.
  Then, the attackers in the Columbine High School Colorado shooting 
used straw purchasers for their weapons, an act that is already illegal 
and has been illegal since at least the 1960s.
  Adam Lanza, the attacker in the Sandy Hook Elementary School, 
Newtown, Connecticut, shooting used his mother's firearms which were 
legally purchased by his mother. So as you can see--and I have each one 
of them listed how the attackers got their guns--H.R. 8 and H.R. 1112 
would not have prevented any of these shootings.
  Not only would none of the mass shootings be prevented by H.R. 8 and 
H.R. 1112, but the Department of Justice under President Obama said 
that in order for universal background checks to actually work and be 
enforceable, a Federal gun registry is needed. Yet this legislation in 
H.R. 8 specifically prohibits a registry; thus, again, it is 
unenforceable.
  The fact is criminals don't get their guns legally and will not go 
through a background check to get their guns even if this bill were 
signed into law.

                              {time}  1345

  A recent Department of Justice report of prison inmates that used 
guns in their crimes showed that 56 percent obtained their guns 
illegally and another 25 percent received them from family members--
which, by the way, family members are still allowed to get the guns 
under this law.
  It is obvious, then, that they did not get their guns from a gun show 
or private sales, as Mr. Raskin is concerned about.
  H.R. 8 will also turn everyday, law-abiding citizens into criminals 
if it becomes law.
  Let's look at the amendments that were rejected by the Democrats in 
the Rules Committee and in the Committee on the Judiciary that offered 
to protect law-abiding citizens from becoming criminals.
  First, there was an amendment--I thought commonsense--that someone 
thinking of committing suicide would be exempted from temporarily 
turning over their gun to a friend, and it is not allowed under this 
bill. They would become a criminal.
  So, somebody who wants to commit suicide could not transfer their gun 
to someone else.
  If a law-abiding citizen wanted to let someone temporarily use their 
gun on their own property, they would become a criminal under this 
bill.
  If a farmer or rancher wanted to temporarily lend a gun to a ranch 
hand for the purposes of ranch activities, the farmer would become a 
criminal under this law.
  If a domestic violence victim was in fear for her life and wanted to 
temporarily borrow a gun from a friend to protect herself, she would 
become a criminal under this law.
  Let's also look at some commonsense amendments rejected by the 
Democrats that would have prevented undue burdens and duplication on 
law-abiding citizens who have already passed a background check but now 
have to go through another background check under this law.
  People who have security clearances. This is the application to get a 
government security clearance, page upon page, background check, 
extensive background check. Yet, someone who has this and has gone 
through this still has to get another background check.
  People who have a concealed carry weapon issued by a State, they have 
to go through another background check.
  People who have already gotten a gun permit from States which require 
them; they have to go through another background check.
  People who have global entry, who have gone through a background 
check, they have got to do it again under this bill.
  Even law enforcement officers. Law enforcement officers have to go 
through another background check under this bill.
  This is placing undue burden on law-abiding citizens.
  Now I want to share testimony from a young woman from the Judiciary 
Committee. This woman was a victim of rape on her college campus. And 
the reason I am bringing it up is because well-meaning gun control laws 
actually prevented her from carrying a gun to school because the State 
she traveled through did not allow her to carry a gun in order to 
defend herself.
  This is a clear example of how law-abiding citizens--not criminals, 
law-abiding citizens--who follow the law and how this young woman and 
others like her were actually harmed by well-intentioned gun control 
laws.
  As a survivor of domestic violence, I know all too well how hard it 
can be to protect oneself or find a lifeline out. My abuser often 
controlled all my finances. I wouldn't have been able to pay for a 
background check or a gun.
  Sometimes getting a gun from a friend could actually be your only 
option; yet, unfortunately, under this bill, I tried to offer an 
amendment, but it was rejected.
  Now let's turn to H.R. 1112, which changes the length of time that a 
background check has to be completed from the current 3 days to 10 
business days and then another 10 business days for an appeal. So it 
could be 20-plus days.
  The reason I am bringing this up is I want to tell you a story--a 
real story--about Carol Bowne. She was a New Jersey woman who was 
stabbed to death while waiting to be approved for her firearm 
application.
  She already had an order of protection through the courts, but that 
wasn't enough. She needed more than just that piece of paper.
  H.R. 1112 will make the realities of Carol's story happen across the 
country, putting millions of women and law-abiding citizens in danger. 
Women who seek avenues of protection will be forced to wait almost a 
month--20 days to a month--like Carol. How many women will potentially 
suffer like Carol?
  H.R. 8 also has other problems.
  Unfortunately, the debate in the Judiciary Committee was cut short. 
Many commonsense amendments were not even heard. Only 10 amendments out 
of 100 were heard before the chairman cut off debate.
  Because of the rush to get this bill through, there is another 
problem. There is vague language that is not defined and, thus, is open 
to interpretation.
  I know, in some of the amendments, the majority party has tried to 
give an alternative to my good, commonsense domestic violence 
amendments, but it doesn't do any good. And this is the reason; it is 
because the language is so vague.
  It says: Under H.R. 8, a person is allowed to temporarily transfer a 
firearm if it is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily 
harm.
  The question is: There is no definition of this, so how long is a 
temporary transfer? Who determines that? Does the victim determine it?
  Who determines if there is imminent death? Does it qualify if a 
victim of domestic violence thinks they will be killed? Or does the 
person transferring the gun have to be in the same room and there be 
some kind of shootout and they throw a gun to them?
  What do ``imminent danger'' and ``imminent death'' mean?
  With something as important as the Second Amendment, I think we owe 
it to the American people to do our work and take as long as we have to 
in order to have a fair and open debate on major pieces of legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, with that, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a statement by the National Task 
Force to End Sexual & Domestic Violence, which is in favor of this 
legislation and against any weakening amendments.

         National Task Force To End Sexual & Domestic Violence

       The National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic 
     Violence, a coalition comprising federal, state, local and 
     tribal organizations and individuals who have fought for

[[Page H2122]]

     federal protections for survivors of domestic violence, 
     dating violence, sexual assault and stalking, oppose any 
     amendments to H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 
     2019, that exempts any persons from the firearms background 
     check requirement. This includes amendments exempting victims 
     and survivors of domestic violence or sexual assault, 
     including those with protective orders.
       Firearms pose a significant danger to victims of domestic 
     violence, and this is true no matter who owns the firearm. 
     Research shows that a male abuser's access to a firearm 
     increases the risk of intimate partner femicide fivefold and 
     does not support the contention that firearm possession is a 
     protective factor for the victim. The testimony of Christy 
     Salters Martin, a professional boxer and experienced gun 
     user, to the Senate Judiciary Committee illustrates this. 
     Despite her boxing prowess and familiarity with firearms, her 
     abuser was able to take her gun from her and shoot her with 
     it, narrowly missing her heart. Firearms do not make victims 
     of domestic violence safer; firearms put victims at greater 
     risk.
       Furthermore, domestic abusers are adept at using the 
     justice system against victims. Abusers often accuse the 
     victim of being the perpetrator of violence, making police 
     reports and seeking protective orders. Abusers are also adept 
     at finding loopholes. If persons with protective orders are 
     exempted from the background check requirement, many abusers 
     who are prohibited from possessing firearms would seek 
     protective orders in order to circumvent the background check 
     requirement to obtain firearms to terrorize their victims.
       Moreover, requiring a victim to undergo a firearms 
     background check is not a hurdle to obtaining a firearm. Most 
     firearm background checks are completed in under a minute. A 
     victim seeking to purchase a firearm would still be able to 
     do so quickly, unless the victim was legally prohibited from 
     possessing firearms.
       Rather than adding dangerous exemptions to a law that is 
     supposed to protect victims and survivors of domestic 
     violence, Congress should focus on ensuring that adjudicated 
     domestic abusers do not possess firearms. This includes 
     ensuring federal firearms prohibitors protect all victims of 
     intimate partner violence, including dating partners, and 
     ensuring that domestic abusers who are prohibited from 
     possessing firearms relinquish their firearms. The best way 
     to protect victims is to disarm abusers.

  Mr. RASKIN. Just to quote a small part of it: ``Firearms pose a 
significant danger to victims of domestic violence, and this is true no 
matter who owns the firearm. Research shows that a male abuser's access 
to a firearm increases the risk of intimate partner femicide fivefold 
and does not support the contention that firearm possession is a 
protective factor for the victim.''
  And there is more in here of interest.
  I would like to thank my distinguished colleague from Arizona for her 
thoughts on the question of sexual and domestic violence.
  We, indeed, have a provision within the legislation which allows for 
an exemption from the background check requirement in cases of an 
imminent threat of great bodily harm.
  The question has been raised: Does that include sexual assault, 
dating partner violence, stalking, and so on? We thought it was self-
evident that it did, but, in any event, Representatives Horn from 
Oklahoma and Murphy from Florida are introducing a clarifying amendment 
to be very specific that it is included.
  At that point, perhaps we could welcome the support of the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Arizona, because we are being very clear 
at that point that our exception for imminent bodily harm and violence 
includes sexual assault and so on.
  I am certain that the gentlewoman's intentions are good, just as are 
the intentions of the offerers of the amendment in the bill.
  Let me just address, in case the gentlewoman hasn't decided to come 
over to our side now, some of the general points that were made against 
the legislation.
  The gentlewoman articulated an argument we have been hearing a lot of 
from our counterparts, which is that criminals don't follow the law 
and, therefore, there is no reason to get rid of the loopholes and 
strengthen the law, because criminals won't follow the law.
  Now, the fallacy of that argument is plain to see. It is an argument 
against all law.
  It is an argument against the law against murder because murderers 
obviously don't follow the law against murder.
  It is an argument against the law opposed to theft because thieves 
don't follow the law against theft.
  But I think anyone who takes time to really study what law is 
understands that the purpose of the law is to deter people from 
negative, socially harmful action, the way that the Brady Act has 
deterred more than 3 million people--felons, fugitives, the mentally 
unstable, and other unauthorized categories--from accessing a weapon.
  Now, that argument sweeps so broadly that it is an argument against 
having the Brady Act that we have now, and perhaps that is the 
intention, simply to take down the law that we have got now.
  Another purpose of law, of course, is to punish people who violate it 
and then, again, to send a moral message about what the social norms 
are.
  And we have got social norms about driving, for example. Would we say 
we are not going to have driver's licenses in America because people 
who drive without a driver's license ignore the law requiring you to 
have a driver's license?
  It is a completely nonsensical argument.
  Let's come back to reality and talk about what the Brady Act actually 
requires the gun dealers to ask people.
  Here are the basic questions that are being asked:
  Are you under indictment for or have you ever been convicted of a 
felony?
  Are you a fugitive from justice?
  Are you an unlawful user of a controlled substance?
  Do you suffer from mental illness?
  Have you been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces?
  Are you subject to a court order restraining you from harassing, 
stalking, or threatening your child or an intimate partner?
  Have you ever been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic 
violence?
  Have you renounced your United States citizenship?
  Are you unlawfully present in the United States?
  Mr. Speaker, those questions have created a dragnet that has allowed 
us to stop more than 3 million people from getting weapons who 
shouldn't have them.
  But there are these big, gaping loopholes out there that they can go 
on the Internet and get one, or they can go to the parking lot of a 
convenience store in a private sale and get one, or they can go to a 
gun show and negotiate a private sale and get one without having to 
answer those questions.
  Well, the American people have spoken on this. That is really why 
this is the first legislation advocating gun safety to hit the floor of 
the House of Representatives in a quarter of a century.
  This is a great day for the gun safety movement that has overtaken 
America, rejecting the unconscionable toll of 100 people dead every 
single day in communities across the land.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Thompson), the sponsor of the underlying bill, H.R. 8, who has done 
such a magnificent job advocating this cause through thick and thin.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
this rule and for the underlying legislation, a bipartisan measure that 
will make all of our communities safer and will save lives.
  I would like to thank Chairman McGovern for his fair consideration of 
H.R. 8 and the proposed amendments that came before the Rules 
Committee.
  This is an important time in our Nation's history. Over 80 percent of 
Americans have come together to support universal background checks. 
This is a new day, and this is the time to act now.
  Since the tragedy in Newtown about 6\1/2\ years ago, this House has 
held 54 moments of silence, but we have not held one moment of action.
  With Speaker Pelosi's leadership, we now have a chance to vote for 
two--two--bipartisan bills which will help save lives.
  As a gun owner and a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, I was 
proud to introduce H.R. 8 with my bipartisan colleagues. I look forward 
to its consideration tomorrow, and I urge my colleagues to support this 
rule today and the bill tomorrow.

                              {time}  1400

  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Hudson), my good friend.
  Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong opposition 
to H.R. 8 and H.R. 1112.

[[Page H2123]]

  We all share the same goal: to end gun violence. But in the course of 
this debate, House Democrats say they want to do something to end gun 
violence and anyone who disagrees with their policies doesn't care.
  I believe in my heart that the gentleman from Maryland and the folks 
on the other side of this debate care about the victims of gun violence 
and the children in this country, and I know in my heart that my 
colleagues on this side of the aisle and I care, too.
  It is a shame that in their rush to do something, anything, Democrats 
have made this a partisan show. They won't even allow my bipartisan 
concealed carry reciprocity bill that passed this House last Congress 
to be debated on the House floor today.
  What about the single mother victim of assault, like Shaneen Allen? 
Does she not have the right to defend herself?
  Instead of working on commonsense solutions that can actually help 
prevent tragedies--like supporting local law enforcement, ensuring laws 
and protocols are followed, improving mental health, and implementing 
my concealed carry reciprocity--they are targeting law-abiding 
citizens, and they are disregarding existing Federal law.
  There is no gun show loophole. Federal law already requires a 
background check on every commercial gun purchase in America no matter 
where it takes place. Federal law already prohibits so-called straw 
purchases.
  Let's make one thing clear: H.R. 8 would not have stopped Newtown. 
H.R. 8 would not have stopped Parkland. It would not have stopped Las 
Vegas or Sutherland Springs or San Bernardino or the tragic attack on 
our former colleague, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.
  But the proponents of gun control don't want you to judge them based 
on outcomes; they want you to judge them based on intentions. And they 
say anyone who points out the facts, anyone who dares observe the 
obvious flaws in their legislation, does so because they don't care.
  In their rush to do something, House Democrats ignore that House 
Republicans have done many things, like strengthening the background 
check system, which would have prevented Sutherland Springs; improving 
mental healthcare, which would have prevented many of these shootings 
such as Newtown and Charleston and Parkland; and giving schools the 
tools they need to protect students. All these bills received 
bipartisan support in the last Congress, but we don't get credit for 
real action because they say our intentions weren't good enough.
  We owe it to the American people to look past the intention and the 
emotion and focus like a laser on outcomes. What can we do to actually 
end gun violence once and for all?
  So what is this bill actually going to do?
  It is going to turn a law-abiding American into a criminal when you 
loan your shotgun to your buddy to go dove hunting.
  It is going to make it illegal for a victim of stalking to borrow a 
gun from a neighbor for protection.
  It is going to make the cost of background checks so expensive that 
the average American can't afford to buy a gun. Meanwhile, criminals 
are going to continue to get their firearms, whether it is through 
theft or the black market or on the street.
  I applaud President Donald Trump for standing with us against this 
ineffective legislation, and I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  The American people want us to work together to solve this problem 
and stop gun violence. Can't we come together in a bipartisan way and 
not just do something, but do something that will actually make a 
difference?
  I am calling on my colleagues to put partisanship aside. Work 
together on ideas that will actually make a difference. I stand ready 
to continue this work. I will work with anyone to end gun violence 
while also protecting the rights of law-abiding citizens, and I reject 
the false dilemma that we can't do both.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I suppose that we are in a rush to do anything, something, anything 
that works in order to curb the terrible toll of gun violence on our 
society.
  In the last Congress it is true there was other legislation that was 
brought to us. One was a proposal to legalize silencers in America, 
which sounds to me more like an agenda of organized crime than it is of 
the U.S. Congress trying to seek public safety.
  But there was this bipartisan Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, which 
was a massive assault on federalism and States' rights. It would have 
destroyed every State's concealed carry law in the country to a level 
at the lowest common denominator. So if you could get a license to 
carry a concealed loaded weapon in one State--and in some States there 
are more than a million people who have been able to get them through 
completely permissive and lax laws--then you could go anywhere in the 
country. That is their proposal. That is what is coming out of the 
loophole factory.
  I just would like to assure my friend that we have a provision in our 
legislation, if you read it carefully, which says that you can 
temporarily transfer a gun at a shooting range, at a shooting gallery, 
or for purposes of hunting, so he doesn't have to worry about this.
  Our friends are either not reading carefully enough or they are 
overlooking very clear passages in our legislation which deal with 
commonsense concerns.
  This is bipartisan legislation. It is backed by more than 90 percent 
of the American people, and it is going to advance common safety. So 
rather than searching for mysterious reasons to oppose it, why 
shouldn't everybody get together to say this is something that will 
promote the public safety?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 
Castor).
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Raskin of the Rules 
Committee for yielding the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and H.R. 8, the 
Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019. I am proud to be a cosponsor, 
and I thank Congressman Thompson for his leadership.
  Our bill is intended to ensure that individuals who are prohibited 
from owning a firearm are not able to possess one.
  Representative Raskin is right. America is in the midst of a gun 
violence emergency. Each year, 120,000 Americans are injured by a 
firearm; 35,000 Americans die; and of those, 17,000 who are injured and 
killed are children.
  No other country in the world suffers the ravages of gun violence, 
and I am afraid we have become numb to it. But we don't have to accept 
it, and we are not, because we are going to finally pass legislation 
here today.
  Mass shootings are on the rise. Military-style assault weapons are 
deadlier than ever. People are being gunned down in churches, schools, 
movie theaters, nightclubs, and synagogues.
  For so many years, the Republican-led Congress blocked action on 
commonsense gun safety laws. But, finally, to the American people: We 
heard you; to the students who marched for their lives: We are finally 
going to act.
  It is time now. I urge adoption of this bipartisan bill, the rule. It 
is a vote for the safety of our communities and our families.
  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a couple of things that were 
said previously.
  I had sponsored an amendment, as a survivor of domestic violence, to 
allow victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse who have orders of 
protection to be able to get transferred a gun if they might be in fear 
for their life.
  As I have said, often victims of domestic violence don't have the 
financial means or they are so restricted by their perpetrator that it 
is difficult for them to go out and purchase a gun, let alone get a 
background check, and so they might have a friend whom they can borrow 
it from.
  Now, in response, I think, Mr. Raskin, if I am not mistaken, said 
that the Democrats did help domestic violence victims. I just don't 
think that their amendment cuts it, and I am going to read the 
amendment if this is the one that the gentleman is talking about.
  It says: A temporary transfer that is necessary to prevent imminent 
death or great bodily harm, if the possession by the transferee lasts 
only as long as immediately necessary to prevent the

[[Page H2124]]

imminent death or great bodily harm--and then here is the amendment--
including the harm of domestic violence, dating partner violence, 
sexual assault, stalking, and domestic abuse.
  I would say just because you add the words ``domestic violence,'' 
``victims of domestic abuse'' doesn't mean this is going to help; and 
the reason is simply because of what I said before, that these terms in 
here are really unclear. I really would like somebody to explain, and 
they are not defined anywhere, who determines prevent imminent death or 
great bodily harm?
  So, let's say I am a victim of domestic violence and I think my 
perpetrator is going to kill me. Does imminent death and, in this word, 
say, last only as long as immediately necessary to prevent the imminent 
death? So does that mean the person who--my friend who can lend me a 
gun has to be right there in the same room and see that there is 
imminent death coming?
  I mean, there is no definition here. So it is unclear to me that this 
would help at all.
  Also, what is the definition of ``temporary transfer''? How long is 
that? How long is temporary transfer? Does that mean, you know, just 
enough time you can throw somebody a gun while they are imminently in 
death? I mean, do you have to be right there? What does this mean? 
There is no definition.
  So, if we are going to proceed with this, I think that we should at 
least define what these terms mean. Therefore, I really wish that my 
amendment that said that victims of domestic violence or sexual abuse 
that have an order of protection through the court--through the court--
would be allowed to at least borrow a gun to defend themselves from, 
maybe, a friend.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to thank my colleague for advancing our discussion here 
because I think now we are really starting to get somewhere.
  The gentlewoman suggested an amendment which allows for the transfer 
of a firearm to a victim of domestic violence or sexual assault who has 
an order of protection issued by a court. That is an extremely narrow 
exception.
  Most women who are enduring domestic violence don't have a civil 
protection order. Part of that is because of the incompetence of the 
laws in a lot of States, and part of it is because they haven't had the 
wherewithal to go and get one.
  But our legislation and our amendment sweeps much more broadly. It 
allows any woman who is a victim of domestic violence, who faces a 
threat from their attacker, to be loaned a gun by a family member or be 
loaned a gun by a friend until the threat is resolved.
  My friend suggests that there is something ambiguous about the words. 
I just don't see the ambiguity. Their original argument attacked the 
utility of all criminal law, saying we shouldn't have criminal laws, 
essentially, because criminals won't follow them.
  This seems like an attack on law itself. Law depends upon language. 
But the language is clear here that if there is a threat and if you are 
suffering from the threat of domestic violence, sexual assault and so 
on, then you can get the gun.
  Who interprets it? Well, you have got the right to go out and get it. 
If someone were to prosecute you for doing that, the prosecution would 
clearly lose.
  So I am afraid that our friends are looking for problems in this 
bipartisan legislation which simply don't exist.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as a senior member on the Judiciary 
Committee and senior member on the Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland 
Security Subcommittee, I, too, am glad of the underlying discussion 
regarding the protecting of women.
  I rise today to support H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act 
of 2019, to close the gun show loophole, supported by 80 percent of the 
American people, so unlicensed dealers cannot, undercover, out of the 
back of their trunk, sell to people who would create and perpetrate 
either mass murders or individual abuse and gun violence.
  I also support H.R. 1112, the Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019, 
that would, in fact, have stopped the deaths at the Mother Emanuel 
Church in Charleston, South Carolina, where worshippers were shot down, 
nine of them.
  To listen to the debate in the Judiciary Committee, 10 hours of 
rebuffing these simple legislative initiatives, I beg of my colleagues 
to stand with us. It is clear that we have an amendment, Horn and 
Murphy, that clarifies great bodily harm, includes domestic violence, 
dating partner violence, sexual assault, stalking, and domestic abuse. 
We want women to be protected and others involved in domestic abuse 
circumstances.
  My amendment that will be brought up as well will provide the 
information as to how many times the FBI has had to deal with petitions 
that have been denied.
  Let us not have another 20 years before we have bills that deal with 
gun safety legislation. Let's do it now.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule governing debate on 
H.R. 8, the ``Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019'' and H.R. 1112, 
the ``Enhanced Background Check Act of 2019,'' as well as the 
underlying legislation.
  These legislative proposals address and strengthen the background 
check system that is already in place to purchase a firearm.
  A 2013 study found that approximately 80 percent of all firearms 
acquired for criminal purposes were obtained from sources who were not 
required to run a background check, and that 96 percent of inmates who 
were not prohibited from possessing a firearm at the time they 
committed their crime obtained their gun this way.
  This loophole exists largely because unlicensed sellers need not 
conduct any background check under current law, even if the sellers 
sell a large number of guns.
  H.R. 8, the ``Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019,'' would make 
it illegal for any person who is not a licensed firearm importer, 
manufacturer, or dealer to transfer a firearm to any other person who 
is not so licensed without a background check.
  Individuals seeking to transfer a firearm under this measure would be 
required to visit a licensed firearms dealer to run the necessary 
background check before the transfer could be finalized.
  H.R. 8 is intended to provide an accurate and speedy manner to ensure 
firearms do not end up in the wrong hands.
  An internal assessment by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 
demonstrated that NICS background checks are approximately 99.3 percent 
to 99.8 percent accurate, and in 90 percent of cases, are processed 
within 90 seconds.
  H.R. 1112, the ``Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019,'' would 
strengthen the background check procedures federal firearms licensees 
or dealers follow before selling or transferring a firearm.
  As under current law, firearms dealers would be required to run a 
background check on prospective buyers using the NICS.
  Over 90% of checks are completed within 90 seconds so if the NICS 
system has not returned an answer to the licensed firearms dealer 
within ten days, the prospective firearms purchaser may file a petition 
with the Attorney General for review.
  After another ten-day period has expired, the licensed firearms 
dealer may sell or transfer the firearm to the prospective purchaser if 
it has not received a response through the NICS system and the dealer 
has no reason to believe that the purchaser is prohibited from 
obtaining a firearm under federal, state, or local law.
  Thus, under this measure, licensed firearms dealers could not sell or 
transfer under the ``default proceed'' provision until at least 20 days 
have passed, since the initial background check.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people are demanding effective action to 
reduce, if not prevent altogether, the countless mass shootings and gun 
violence in our country that continue to claim so many innocent lives.
  Newly released data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and 
Prevention found firearm-related deaths rose for the second-straight 
year in 2016, largely due to spikes in gun violence.
  In 2016, the new CDC report on preliminary mortality data shows that 
there were more than 38,000 gun-related deaths in the U.S.--4,000 more 
than 2015.
  An Associated Press analysis of FBI data shows there were about 
11,000 gun-related homicides in 2016, up from 9,600 in 2015.
  Congress must act to keep our country safe through gun safety and 
violence deterrence.
  There is nearly one mass shooting per day in the United States--355 
mass shootings in 2018.
  In December 2012, a gunman walked into Sandy Hook Elementary School 
in Newtown,

[[Page H2125]]

Connecticut, and killed 20 children, 6 adults, and himself.
  Since December 2012, there have been at least 1,518 mass shootings, 
with at least 1,715 people killed and 6,089 wounded.
  On the night of October 1, 2017, a gunman opened fire on a large 
crowd of concertgoers at the Route 91 Harvest music festival on the Las 
Vegas Strip, leaving 58 people dead and 527 injured.
  And on November 5, 2017, a mass shooting occurred at the First 
Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, where the gunman, 26-year-
old Devin Patrick Kelley killed 26 and injured 20 others.
  Every day, on average, 92 Americans are victims of gun violence, 
resulting in more than 33,000 deaths annually.
  States with higher gun ownership rates have higher gun murder rates--
as much as 114 percent higher than other States.
  A recent study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
looking at 30 years of homicide data found that for every 1 percent 
increase in a State's gun ownership rate, there is a nearly 1 percent 
increase in its firearm homicide rate.
  Gun death rates are generally lower in States with restrictions such 
as safe storage requirements or assault weapons bans.
  Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 33 years: 0.
  Because more than 75 percent of the weapons used in mass shootings 
between 1982 and 2012 were obtained legally, stronger legislation is 
needed to prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands.
  And that begins with passing H.R. 8, the ``Bipartisan Background 
Checks Act of 2019,'' and H.R. 1112, the ``Enhanced Background Check 
Act of 2019.''
  I urge all Members to support the rule and the underlying legislation 
when it comes to the floor.
  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to refute some of the things, or talk about some of the 
things said by my friends on the other side.
  One of the things that I do want to talk about is that Mr. Raskin 
said that my amendment is such a narrow exception for domestic violence 
victims. I had a broader one in Judiciary Committee, if the gentleman 
remembers, and Chairman Nadler told me that it was too broad, that it 
was too vague, so that is why I made it very specific.
  If the gentleman would like, I will make it broad again.

                              {time}  1415

  Also in the Rules Committee, there was another amendment as well, and 
we are both on Rules, too, of course.
  There was a broader one from Mr. Scalise, who is a victim of gun 
violence. He had an amendment that was ruled out of order. That 
basically said any victim of domestic violence, which was broad, but 
then he had another subsection that said victim of domestic violence or 
sexual abuse that has an order of protection. So we covered both, yet 
it was ruled out of order. So we really tried.
  Now, the other thing that you brought up, that it is very clear what 
imminent danger means, and that would cover somebody, and surely a 
domestic violence victim would not become a criminal under this law. 
Well, I don't think it is very sure.
  So I ask Mr. Raskin, my colleague, if he would be open to removing 
the word ``imminent'' and just say ``danger,'' instead of ``imminent 
danger,'' because to me, ``imminent danger'' means you have to be right 
in the same room, you know, and throw somebody a gun or something. I 
mean, to me, the word ``imminent'' needs to be removed from the 
language.
  The other thing I would like to talk about is the number of times now 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said: Oh, so many 
people support this universal background check.
  Well, I disagree. I disagree, because there is proof right in Maine. 
They had a ballot measure, and it was rejected by the majority of the 
people.
  I suppose it depends on how you ask the question, but I just don't 
think that when you get into the details of how it takes away our 
fundamental Second Amendment rights and actually burdens law-abiding 
citizens and actually may harm people, some of these laws--like was the 
case with the young woman who testified in Judiciary who said that 
good-intentioned gun laws actually prevented her from defending 
herself, and she was raped.
  So I would say I have some disagreements with some of your 
statements.
  I also want to point out that there are many things that we can do on 
a bipartisan basis, and this obviously is not bipartisan. I am a co-
chairwoman of the Women's Caucus in Congress, and I have talked to my 
counterpart, a very nice woman and Congresswoman. We really do want to 
work on bipartisan solutions to gun violence. I would say one of those 
is let's really concentrate on mental health issues.
  Now, we have done some things in the past. We did the Fix NICS Act, 
which we passed last year on a bipartisan basis, which really is an 
attempt to fix the national background system so that local 
jurisdictions actually report when there are problems, which I think is 
very valuable.
  We also did legislation in a bipartisan manner that would protect our 
schools more.
  Here is another thing we could do in a bipartisan manner. As you have 
noted, 3.5 million people have been stopped by NICS since 1994 from 
getting guns, and 112,000 were stopped just last year. But you know 
what? Only 12 of those 112,000 were actually prosecuted. Why? I mean, 
we have laws on the books now, and we are not even enforcing them. So I 
think that is another thing we can do on a bipartisan basis.
  Again, this bill, I believe, does more harm than good. I do think my 
colleagues are well intentioned. I do believe that all of us, whether 
we are Republican or Democrat, want to reduce gun violence.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I might 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, first, to clarify one thing, this is bipartisan 
legislation. We have at least five Republicans who are cosponsoring and 
supporting this legislation. I assume my friend doesn't mean to read 
those five Republican Members of the House of Representatives out of 
her caucus.
  I am not quite sure what happened in Maine, but I know that there are 
around a dozen States and the District of Columbia that have already 
gotten rid of the loopholes that we are going to get rid of today in 
this Federal legislation.
  My friend also invokes Second Amendment rights. I thought that we had 
put that red herring to rest in 2008 in Heller v. District of Columbia. 
Justice Scalia said that reasonable regulation to screen out felons and 
fugitives and the mentally unstable is perfectly consistent with the 
Second Amendment.
  Everybody on both sides of the aisle favors the Second Amendment, 
along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. If you are going to oppose 
this legislation, you have to base it on some public safety rationale 
and not pretend like anybody has made a constitutional argument, 
because nobody has made a constitutional argument.
  Finally, on the question of the domestic violence amendment, I would 
invite my friend to come on over, and we would gladly have unanimous 
consent to have her added to the amendment, which is the broader 
amendment she is talking about. Of course, her amendment was the narrow 
one, which required you to have a civil protection order before there 
would be an exception from the provisions of the legislation.
  She said she was misdirected by the chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee. All I can say is the legislative process is a treacherous 
place and a rocky road for people in the minority. I have been dealing 
with that for several years. In any event, we would love to have you 
join the amendment now. Mr. Speaker, I make that offer to my friend.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), who is the great and distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Raskin) for yielding me the time, and I thank him for his leadership on 
this important issue.
  Let me remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are 
opposing this legislation that people are watching this debate, and I 
know many are scratching their heads wondering what is going on, 
because what we are trying to do here is close loopholes that allow 
violent criminals to get access to guns, not create more loopholes.

[[Page H2126]]

  Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, I spoke at a town hall sponsored by 
students at Bancroft High School in Worcester, Massachusetts. Those 
young people demanded action on gun violence, not unlike other young 
people all across my district and all across this country. They are 
terrified, and they are tired of seeing one massacre after another 
after another after another. They are sickened by the unacceptable high 
rate of gun violence in this country.
  We have an obligation to be on their side, not on the side of the gun 
lobby.
  In fact, most gun owners agree with what we are doing here today. 
Ninety-seven percent of gun-owning households support universal 
background checks. You don't see support like that on very many things, 
but on this issue, the public is speaking loud and clear. The question 
is whether Congress is going to listen.
  My office has been flooded with calls on this year after year after 
year, and I have heard from loved ones of victims killed and from those 
injured. I know many of my colleagues can say the same thing. It is 
heartbreaking.
  Each of us is in a unique position. We can do more than just listen. 
We can act. We can actually vote to help save lives.
  Sadly, past majorities have turned a deaf ear. In fact, it has been 
nearly a decade since the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on a major 
bill to combat gun violence. When they were in charge, my Republican 
friends on the other side instead held a hearing on a bill that would 
have actually brought more guns from out of State into local 
communities.
  Their indifference on this issue of gun violence, their silence, has 
been stunning. But this majority is not satisfied with inaction. We 
will not be cowed by the gun lobby.
  We are moving legislation, in the case of H.R. 8, that has been in 
the works for more than 20 years. The time for inaction is over.
  Listen to the young people in your districts. They are not content 
with a future where gun violence is the norm. They want and they 
deserve better.
  Last night in the Rules Committee, my Republican friends tried to 
pass exception after exception after exception.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, they tried to pass exception after 
exception to this universal background check bill, essentially trying 
to gut the bill.
  Well, this is a modest reform in the right direction. We are trying 
to save lives. We are tired of massacres. We are tired of comforting 
parents whose loved ones were killed in gun violence. We are tired of 
inaction. We are tired of the gun lobby dictating what Congress does 
and doesn't pass.
  This majority is going to be run by the people of this country, and 
the majority of the people of this country overwhelmingly support these 
bills.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote 
for this rule and vote for the underlying legislation.
  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Raskin for 
yielding and for his tireless leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule and H.R. 8, 
Congressman Thompson's bipartisan bill that makes gun sale background 
checks universal.
  This bill is an important step to ensure that individuals who should 
not be allowed to purchase a gun are no longer able to purchase a gun.
  Since 2014, nearly 400 of my constituents have died by gun violence. 
Our community feels their loss every single day. Here are just a few of 
their names and tragic stories.
  Davon Ellis: Davon was a star football player and an excellent 
student at Oakland Tech High School. He was shot and killed while 
walking home from school. My nephew was walking with him when he was 
gunned down.
  Travon Godfrey: Travon was killed in 2016 while sitting in a car with 
his friends in front of his home. Every time I think about Travon, my 
heart breaks. Travon came to a town meeting that I held on gun violence 
in January of 2016.
  Sadly, these heartbreaking stories are all too familiar in 
communities across the country. More than 30,000 Americans lose their 
lives to gun violence each year. Shootings now kill as many Americans 
as car accidents, and that is why this bill is so important.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman.
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much 
for yielding me additional time.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is a good first step to ensure that our 
background checks are strengthened, that we keep guns out of the wrong 
hands, and that we close these loopholes.
  Mr. Speaker, we must end this epidemic of gun violence in our 
country. This is a national emergency. This bill will save lives, so I 
urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the bill.
  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to make my amendment in order, which would allow 
domestic violence and sexual assault victims with orders of protection 
to be exempt from the gun transfer prohibitions. This amendment 
is crucial to saving lives.

  As a survivor of domestic violence, I know what it is like to be in 
fear for our lives.
  This commonsense amendment is clearcut. If you are a victim with an 
order of protection, you can borrow a firearm or transfer a firearm to 
you. It is important, because victims don't often have the means to 
purchase or go pay for a background check.
  The Democrats have presented a letter from the National Task Force to 
End Sexual and Domestic Violence as a reason for not needing my 
amendment. However, with all due respect, the National Task Force does 
not speak for every victim, and they certainly do not speak for me. In 
fact, they never even contacted me, and I have been an outspoken person 
saying I am a survivor of domestic violence since I ran for Congress. I 
am also the person who sponsored the amendment to extend the Violence 
Against Women Act, yet they have never talked to me or reached out to 
my office.
  The majority offered a political amendment on domestic violence, 
which I have already talked about, which really does not do any good, 
because the definitions of imminent danger are not defined, and it will 
not be carried out and will not be effective.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Price of North Carolina). Is there 
objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, in closing, we all want to solve gun 
violence in the United States, but H.R. 8 and H.R. 1112 will not solve 
the problem.

                              {time}  1430

  As co-chairwoman of the bipartisan Women's Caucus, I am committed to 
working across the aisle on solutions we can all agree on. However, 
this is not one of them. We can talk about mental health. We can talk 
about strengthening the NICS background check system even more. We can 
talk about enforcing the laws that are already on the books.
  H.R. 8 will turn law-abiding citizens into criminals by making 
everyday gun transfers a crime and putting those who seek to protect 
themselves in jail for wanting to do so.
  H.R. 8 and H.R. 1112 will place an undue burden on citizens who 
already have a background check. For instance: security clearance, 
global entry, State-issued permits, et cetera.
  These pieces of legislation put law-abiding citizens in danger by 
disarming them and emboldening criminals. The bad guys never follow the 
law. In fact, I believe that this legislation violates the Second 
Amendment of the Constitution because it does not prohibit undue fees 
for background checks and, thus, some people cannot afford them

[[Page H2127]]

and, thus, not be able to get a gun to defend themselves.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge ``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' on the 
underlying measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, far from trying to turn law-abiding citizens into 
criminals, our legislation will save law-abiding citizens from 
criminals, simply by expanding the successful Brady law, which has been 
in effect for decades now.
  The gentlewoman introduces a constitutional argument at the last 
minute here, saying that our legislation is unconstitutional because 
there may be undue fees imposed. Of course, those are the fees that are 
currently imposed under the Brady law, so I am afraid that my friend 
has just made an argument for the unconstitutionality of the current 
law, which has saved us from more than 3 million felons, fugitives, 
mentally unstable people, drug abusers, and undocumented aliens from 
acquiring firearms in the country.
  Mr. Speaker, our country is a social contract. I know we have got a 
lot of young people here today. We are a social contract. If you go 
back and read any of the social contracts--there is Thomas Hobbes, John 
Locke, or Thomas Jefferson--any of them say, we leave a state of 
nature, which is a state of war and a state of violence, in order to 
live in a civilized way.
  But how civilized is it when tens of thousands of Americans, every 
year, are being killed in firearm violence? Every day, another hundred 
Americans are killed with guns.
  In 2017, the highest level in 40 years, nearly 40,000 Americans died 
from gun violence. That is not a civilized state. That is a state of 
war. That is a state of violence.
  We know what the loopholes are, and we are going to close the 
loopholes with our bipartisan legislation, which has support from 
Republicans and it has support from Democrats. The public opinion polls 
show that more than 95 percent of the American people support what we 
are trying to do here--close the gun show loophole, close the private 
sale loophole, close the internet loophole--make sure that everybody 
who purchases a gun in America is purchasing it only with the universal 
comprehensive mental and criminal background check.
  We have amendments for the discrete exceptions that are necessary, 
including in cases of imminent violence, including rape and sexual 
assault via domestic violence. We think that this legislation is 
excellent legislation that every Member of Congress should feel proud 
voting for.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit both H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Check 
Act, as well as the bill to close the Charleston loophole, so that 
criminals are not given guns after 3 days. We are able to delay that 
process in the event that more investigation is needed.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 145, 
the rule providing for consideration of the Bipartisan Background 
Checks Act of 2019 (H.R. 8) and the Enhanced Background Checks Act of 
2019 (H.R. 1112).
  These critical bills would ensure that there is a comprehensive 
background check on every firearm purchase, something that 97 percent 
of American voters, including 97 percent of gun-owning households, 
support.
  H.R. 8 requires background checks on all firearm sales, including 
those conducted by unlicensed gun sellers, closing what has become 
known as the ``gun show loophole.''
  H.R. 1112 closes another loophole in current statute that allows gun 
dealers to transfer a firearm after three business days if they have 
not received a definitive response from the background check system.
  Tragically, this gap became known as the ``Charleston loophole'' when 
it contributed to the brutal murder of nine people at the Emanuel 
African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston in 2015.
  Congress must act immediately on the ABCs of gun violence prevention.
  A is for Assault Weapons Ban.
  B is for Background Checks Reform.
  C is for Closing the Gun Show Loophole.
  These measures make progress on B and C, and I urge my colleagues to 
support them.
  The material previously referred to by Mrs. Lesko is as follows:

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 4. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, the amendment printed in section 5 shall be in 
     order as though printed as the last amendment in part A of 
     the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution if offered by Representative Lesko of Arizona or a 
     designee. That amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent.
       Sec. 5. The amendment referred to in section 4 is as 
     follows:
       Page 3, line 17, strike ``or''.
       Page 4, line 15, strike the period and insert ``; or''.
       Page 4, after line 15, insert the following:
       ``(G) a transfer to a victim of domestic violence or sexual 
     assault who is to be protected under an order of protection 
     issued by a court of law.''.

  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by 5-
minute votes on:
  Adoption of House Resolution 145, if ordered;
  Ordering the previous question on House Resolution 144; and
  Adoption of House Resolution 144, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 229, 
nays 191, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 90]

                               YEAS--229

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--191

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)

[[Page H2128]]


     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bucshon
     Cohen
     DeFazio
     Frankel
     Hill (AR)
     Katko
     King (IA)
     Lowey
     Smith (WA)
     Wagner
     Walker

                              {time}  1458

  Messrs. HURD of Texas and WALDEN changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227, 
nays 194, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 91]

                               YEAS--227

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--194

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Golden
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Peterson
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Cohen
     DeFazio
     Frankel
     Fulcher
     Hagedorn
     Katko
     King (IA)
     Lowey
     Smith (WA)
     Wagner

                              {time}  1510

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________