[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 36 (Wednesday, February 27, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H2242-H2263]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                BIPARTISAN BACKGROUND CHECKS ACT OF 2019


                             General Leave

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members

[[Page H2243]]

may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and insert extraneous material on H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background 
Checks Act of 2019.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cicilline). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 145 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 8.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1225


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 8) to require a background check for every firearm sale, with Mr. 
Blumenauer in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Collins) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that today we are considering H.R. 8, the 
Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019. We have promised the American 
people that Congress would take steps to reduce gun violence, and this 
bill is a critical first step toward doing so.
  During the past 4 weeks, as the Judiciary Committee, and now the full 
House, have discussed the issue of gun violence, I have cited grim 
statistics. Nearly 40,000 Americans lost their lives because of guns in 
2017. In fact, every day in America, on average, 34 people are murdered 
with a firearm, and more than 183 people are injured in an attack.
  Gun violence of this magnitude is a distinctly American problem. A 
country-to-country comparison is shocking. For example, in 2011, the 
United Kingdom had 146 deaths due to gun violence; Denmark, 71; 
Portugal, 142; and Japan, just 30. The United States, that year, about 
35,000.
  A recent study in the American Journal of Medicine found that, 
compared to 22 other high-income countries, the gun-related murder rate 
in the United States is 25 times higher. Even when you adjust for 
population differences, Americans are disproportionately killed by gun 
violence.
  Almost 25 years to the day after the Brady Act was first implemented, 
expanding our current background check requirement to cover virtually 
all gun transfers is one of the steps we must take to address this 
crisis.
  Under current law, only licensed firearms dealers are required to 
conduct a background check before transferring a gun to another person. 
This means that gun shows, online sales, and other private sales can 
completely evade this vital tool for ensuring that guns do not get into 
the wrong hands. It is time to close this dangerous loophole.
  This bill 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.
  The bill also provides a number of exceptions to this requirement, 
including gifts to family members and transfers for hunting, target 
shooting, and instances of imminent death or great bodily harm.
  The FBI's internal assessment demonstrated that checks processed 
through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, often 
called NICS, are approximately 99.3 percent to 99.8 percent accurate, 
and in 90 percent of cases, the background checks are completed within 
90 seconds. H.R. 8 will provide an accurate and speedy mechanism to 
help ensure firearms do not end up in the wrong hands.
  There is no reason to continue to make it easy for people who are 
legally prohibited from possessing firearms to acquire them by 
circumventing the background check process. H.R. 8 would close this 
dangerous loophole and save many, many lives. That is why I urge my 
colleagues to vote in favor of this vital legislation today.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Today I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 8, the so-called Bipartisan 
Background Checks Act of 2019. This is bad legislation that fails to 
make anyone safer in any regard.
  I have been listening here, sitting on the floor for just the last 
few minutes and listening to those who came up and were happy about 
this bill coming forward today, and they mentioned many acts of mass 
violence and situations that have happened. The sad part about it is 
they claim this is the answer and the first step. In actuality, it is, 
at best, a side step, and it may actually be a step backwards and will 
not do what it is being claimed to do.
  All this legislation will do is burden law-abiding citizens wishing 
to exercise their Second Amendment rights, including defending 
themselves from the gun-toting criminals this bill does nothing to 
combat.

                              {time}  1230

  H.R. 8 foolishly presumes criminals who flout existing laws will 
suddenly submit themselves to background checks.
  Are Members who support this bill delusional enough to think a 
criminal trading cocaine to another criminal for a firearm will give 
consideration to H.R. 8 and go to the nearest gun store to submit to a 
background check? That is absurd.
  Most of us will agree that criminals are not going to do that anyway. 
My concern is what it actually does in practice to those who are not 
criminals.
  Not only is it foolish to think they will start following the law, it 
is also foolish to think it is going to in any way make our country 
safer.
  My Democratic friends have exploited every mass shooting, calling for 
universal background checks, but H.R. 8 would not have stopped a single 
mass shooting.
  These strategies do, however, share one thing in common. Over and 
over, we see issues of mental health and missed opportunities for 
authorities to intercede.
  Let me just say, Mr. Chair, I share the concern. I am going to share, 
in just a moment, actual, real things that actually could make a 
difference in helping to stem the tide of mass violence in our country. 
But doing this, we have to understand that this bill does not do that, 
and what may make you feel good may not heal you. That has to be 
understood.
  Look at the recent workplace shooting in Illinois, where the gunman 
murdered five people. That could have been prevented, but not by H.R. 
8. All law enforcement had to do was enforce existing law. The gunman 
was prohibited from possessing firearms.
  In January 2014, he was issued an Illinois firearm owner's 
identification card. That March, he applied to buy a handgun from a gun 
dealer. Five days later, he took possession of the gun, having 
inexplicably passed a background check. That month, he applied for a 
concealed carry permit. During a background check for the permit, his 
felony conviction was flagged.
  Illinois police revoked his firearm card and sent him a letter 
telling him to relinquish the firearm. Not surprisingly, the felon did 
not comply. Had authorities seized the firearm between March 2014 and 
February 2019, they could have saved five lives.
  Aurora, Illinois, is not the only missed opportunity to prevent 
tragedy. We know about missed opportunities in Parkland; Aurora, 
Colorado; Sutherland Springs; Virginia Tech; and others.
  The common problem here, Mr. Chair, is clear. It is not a lack of 
background checks.
  With H.R. 8, Democrats refuse to acknowledge the human factors 
leading to these events, but Republicans have a bill to help law 
enforcement coordinate responses to mental health concerns and other 
mass violent threat information.

[[Page H2244]]

  You know what else H.R. 8 doesn't address? The primary ways criminals 
acquire firearms. Last month, DOJ revealed nearly half of criminals 
obtained firearms via theft or the black market. The survey also 
revealed that a mere 0.8 percent of criminals purchased their firearms 
at gun shows.
  If this bill won't prevent mass shootings and address violent crime, 
what will it do? It will keep law-abiding citizens from protecting 
themselves. Under this bill, Mr. Chair, a battered woman with a 
protection order against her abuser who borrows a firearm for self-
defense would be a criminal. It would criminalize the selling of a 
firearm without a background check to someone with a valid permit 
allowing them to possess, acquire, or carry a firearm. If that person 
walked into a gun store, they could present that permit and not undergo 
a NICS check.
  On the other hand, there are solutions to prevent mass violence and 
gun crime. The Mass Violence Prevention Act, which I introduced earlier 
this week, is one. The MVP Act directly addresses challenges in law 
enforcement coordination and response. It would reduce the flow of 
firearms into the black market, and it would bolster law enforcement's 
ability to prosecute criminals for firearm offenses.
  If reducing gun violence, Mr. Chair, is the Democrats' concern, the 
MVP Act is legislation that we should be considering today, not H.R. 8. 
Talk to me or my staff about cosponsoring this evidence-based, 
commonsense legislation. Unlike H.R. 8, the MVP Act could have 
prevented tragedies such as Parkland.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Chair, my Democratic colleagues, by putting this 
forward and continuing the same narrative, are not actually interested 
in stopping gun violence. I take the intent to be good; I do not 
question the motive. All of us in our life do not want to see the 
tragedies unfold. But this is not the way forward.
  This is another thing put out to the very ones who have suffered, 
telling them we are helping them, while at the same time not telling 
them the truth about the bill, a bill that guts its own ability to 
enforce itself, a bill that actually, possibly, would keep people from 
purchasing firearms because of an unlimited price of a background 
check.
  The question that I have about this bill, Mr. Chair, is not what 
actually could happen with this. It is what actually will be hurt by 
this as we move forward.
  With that, I believe that we are being misled. The victims of mass 
violence are being misled by this bill, H.R. 8, because it would not 
stop what they have been promised that it would stop.
  Mr. Chair, for that, I am profoundly sorry. But because of that, I 
call on my colleagues to reject H.R. 8 and to support real solutions.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Bass), the chairperson of the Crime, Terrorism and 
Homeland Security Subcommittee.
  Ms. BASS. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 8, the 
Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, which will extend the current 
Federal background check requirement to unlicensed sellers of guns.
  It is about time that Congress takes this issue seriously, and I am 
pleased that this bipartisan bill has been brought to the House floor 
with the urgency this issue deserves.
  In recent years, our Nation has experienced an increase in mass 
shootings, and our Nation is appropriately horrified. However, mass 
shootings are just one symptom of our gun violence epidemic. The daily 
toll of shootings occurs in communities across our country, on our 
streets, in our schools, and even in our houses of worship.
  As Aalayah Eastmond testified before the Judiciary Committee earlier 
this month, 1 year after the terrible shooting that took the lives of 
17 students and staff and injured 17 others at her high school in 
Parkland, Florida: ``Minority communities bear the heaviest burden of 
gun violence in this country.''
  The impact on our young people is simply unacceptable. Every day, 47 
children and teens are shot in this country. Eight of these young 
people die, and 39 are shot and survive.
  Citizens across this country such as Diane Latiker, who also 
testified before the committee, are taking it upon themselves to 
organize and engage in community-based efforts to reduce gun violence 
and to assist the young people it affects. We in Congress must match 
their courage and commitment with action of our own.
  I support H.R. 8 because it will reduce gun violence by narrowing the 
avenues for criminals and other prohibited persons from obtaining guns.
  Certainly, there is no single change to our gun laws that will 
prevent every shooting, but enacting measures that will help prevent 
some of them is clearly the right thing to do.
  Mr. Chair, that is why I support this bill, and I ask my colleagues 
to do the same.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chair, unfortunately, this bill does not 
narrow--in fact, it continues the process of those who are going to 
receive guns. Much of the daily toll that we see is actually coming 
from those who are already violating laws currently on the books. It is 
time we actually enforce those as well.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
McClintock).
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 8 is brought to us by the same groups and 
politicians who have made no secret of their desire to ultimately strip 
law-abiding citizens of their right to defend themselves. Now, they 
can't do that outright; they know that. So they do it through cynical 
measures like this, which weave a web of laws so intricate, that, 
sooner or later, everyone can be caught up in them.
  This law affects not just transfer of ownership, but any transfer of 
weapon for any period of time. Suppose you exchange shotguns with a 
friend on a hunt and then separate for a period of time, or you loan a 
gun to your next-door neighbor of 20 years who is being victimized by a 
stalker, or you give a gun to your stepson or your great-grandson. 
Under any of these innocent scenarios and countless more like them, you 
are guilty of a Federal crime.
  These flaws were all pointed out to the bill's sponsors, and none 
were addressed. Why not? I think the reason should be obvious.
  Last October, a 10-year study by Johns Hopkins and UC Davis concluded 
that California's universal background check law had no effect on gun 
homicides or suicides--none.
  The purpose of this bill is not public safety. That is just a 
deceptive facade. Its true purpose is to make gun ownership so legally 
hazardous, so fraught with legal booby traps and draconian penalties, 
that no honest and law-abiding citizen would want to take the risk of 
gun ownership.
  Most criminals already get their guns illegally and are unconstrained 
by laws like this. Make no mistake, this is aimed squarely at law-
abiding citizens, moving us closer to a society where decent people are 
defenseless and armed criminals are kings.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), a member of the committee.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chair, we have a gun violence epidemic in this 
country. For 8 years, we have marked it with moments of silence and 
doing nothing, saying nothing and doing nothing. But today, that 
changes with passage of H.R. 8 for universal background checks.
  We know universal background checks work, because since the passage 
of the Brady bill, 3.5 million illegal gun sales were prevented. But, 
of course, there is a huge loophole. Millions and millions of gun sales 
happen without a background check at all. In fact, one in five, 22 
percent, of guns are sold with no background check. That means 
criminals, domestic abusers, and people prohibited due to mental 
illness can get a gun. This bill changes that.
  We also know that States that have enhanced background checks have 
lower rates of gun homicides, gun suicide rates, and gun trafficking.
  This is a commonsense bill to protect the American people from the 
scourge of gun violence.
  Finally, after 8 years of pleading with our Republican colleagues to 
do something about gun violence in this country, to take up a bill--we 
had a sit-in to try to force a vote--finally,

[[Page H2245]]

today, we are taking our first step to reduce gun violence in this 
country by passing H.R. 8.
  Finally, we will see Members of Congress standing up to the power of 
the gun lobby and doing what is right for the American people.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I remind the Chair that we did 
pass Fix NICS last year. We did take into account--those things have 
been done. We just simply are not moving a bill that we don't feel 
works, and we actually have offered an alternative.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Biggs).
  Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I tell you that H.R. 8 will do little more than further 
burden law-abiding gun owners. Without an unconstitutional Federal gun 
registry, this bill is impossible to enforce.
  There is no gun show loophole. Federal law is the same regardless of 
where a firearm sale takes place. Federal law requires all firearms 
dealers to be licensed and to initiate a background check before 
transferring a firearm to a nondealer, regardless of where that 
transfer takes place.
  As for nondealers, Federal law prohibits transferring a firearm to 
anyone known or believed to be prohibited from possessing firearms. 
That is already the law.
  According to DOJ, less than 1 percent of criminals in State prison 
for firearm crimes get their firearms from dealers or nondealers at gun 
shows. According to ATF, 6 percent of Federal armed career criminals 
got their firearms from dealers or nondealers at gun shows.
  Online sales loophole: There is no online sales loophole. The Federal 
law is the same regardless of how people communicate about selling or 
buying a firearm.
  Federal law prohibits anyone, licensed firearm dealer or not, from 
shipping a firearm to a person who lives in another State unless the 
receiver is also a dealer. Dealers must document all firearms they 
receive.
  H.R. 8 also fails to include many of the realistic exceptions to the 
new background check requirements for private transfers, such as 
transfers between law enforcement officers outside of their duties, 
transfers to concealed carry permit holders, transfers to museums or 
licensed collectors, transfers to Active Duty military, and many more.
  H.R. 8 includes an exception to the background check transfer if the 
transfer is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. 
But that transfer is only allowed for the length of time that it is 
necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. It doesn't 
even define those terms.
  What about a false alarm? Does it extend to domestic violence fears 
if the person is not getting attacked immediately? Gun rights groups 
have argued that without a definition, this provision would only 
provide protection in instances where it is likely too late for the 
victim to make it out safely.
  Finally, H.R. 8 would not have prevented any of the recent high-
profile shootings. In those cases, the shooter either passed a Federal 
background check or stole the firearms they used.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thompson), the chief author of this legislation and the 
chairman of the Gun Violence Prevention Task Force.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of my bill, H.R. 8, the 
Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019.
  Mr. Chair, first, I thank Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Nadler for 
their support. Gun violence is a true national emergency, and I am glad 
that we are moving so early in this Congress to address this crisis.
  Mr. Chair, I also thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
who recognize the importance of passing this legislation, 
Representatives King, Fitzpatrick, Mast, Upton, and Smith, who stand 
with more than 90 percent of Americans who support universal background 
checks.

                              {time}  1245

  This bill will require a background check on all firearm sales and 
most transfers. Mr. Chairman, I am a lifelong gun owner. I am a hunter 
and I support the Second Amendment. If this bill did anything to erode 
the rights of lawful gun owners, I wouldn't support it and it wouldn't 
have my name on it.
  Background checks work. Every day, they stop 170 felons and 50 
domestic abusers from getting a gun from a licensed dealer. But, in 
some States, those same people can go into a gun show or go online and 
buy a gun without a background check. This bill will help stop them 
from doing so.
  Some will argue that criminals won't follow the law. If that is the 
case, then why do we have laws against murder? People still commit 
murder. Why do we have laws against stealing? People still steal. This 
is flawed logic, and don't fall for it.
  This bill is supported by law enforcement, medical professionals, 
veterans, gun owners, religious leaders, and the millions of Americans 
who took to the streets in support of H.R. 8.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask that my colleagues support this bill and honor 
the lives lost with action. No more moments of silence with no action 
to follow. Today, your thoughts and your prayers aren't enough. Today, 
you can vote, ``yes''.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck).
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for 
yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose H.R. 8, a bill that criminalizes gun 
transfers between law-abiding citizens who have no criminal record and 
no criminal intent.
  The bill includes several flawed and unworkable exceptions. Take the 
law enforcement exception. It allows the police to transfer a firearm, 
but criminalizes transfers to law enforcement.
  Under this bill, a parent whose child finds a gun in a park commits a 
Federal crime if the parent surrenders the gun to police.
  Under this bill, a citizen commits a Federal crime if they 
participate in a local gun buy-back program.
  Under this bill, an attorney commits a Federal crime when they turn a 
client's gun over to the police to clear the client through ballistics 
testing.
  Will criminalizing cooperation with law enforcement make us safer? 
The majority apparently thinks so, and I think it is crazy.
  The Democrats' bill gives special privileges to the bodyguards of the 
wealthy elite, like former Mayor Bloomberg, who is funding the special 
interest advocacy for this bill. He can afford to hire bodyguards. But 
average Americans, who rely on the Second Amendment as their source of 
personal protection, are not given similar protections.
  Nothing should be more offensive to this body than a bill that denies 
citizens their endowed rights while giving wealthy elites special 
protections, privileges, and dispensations. But that is H.R. 8.
  Take the family exception; the rule allows a vote on an amendment to 
ensure that transfers between parent and child include stepparents and 
stepchildren. What about transfers between a foster parent and foster 
child? This bill says foster relationships are not worthy of the same 
respect and equal treatment. Every Member of this body should be 
ashamed to vote for this bill that reflects such terrible policy and 
discrimination.
  Take the Good Samaritan exception, allowing transfers where a threat 
of death or harm is imminent. Imminent means death is menacingly near, 
a standard so strict that it is, frankly, too late to transfer a gun 
once it is obvious a gun is needed for protection.
  Under this standard, it is illegal to loan a gun to a victim of 
domestic violence for her protection until the transferor is 
practically witnessing a murder in progress.
  This standard would also prevent a gun owner who has intermittent 
suicidal thoughts, a known side-effect of certain prescription 
medications, from legally transferring a gun--his own gun--to a friend 
for safekeeping.
  Because this bill criminalizes transfers between law-abiding 
Americans, while doing nothing to curb criminals' access to guns, this 
bill provides the American public with a false sense of security.
  Because this bill includes unworkable exceptions that will mislead 
people

[[Page H2246]]

into thinking a gun transfer is legal when it is not, this bill 
provides law-abiding gun owners with a false sense of immunity.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this totally and completely 
unconstitutional legislation that would deprive people of their 
constitutional rights to keep and bear arms.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Georgia (Mrs. McBath), a member of the committee.
  Mrs. McBATH. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Nadler for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, today marks a very pivotal moment in our fight to 
prevent gun violence and to ensure the safety of every community across 
our Nation.
  I thank the more than 230 of my colleagues who have cosponsored H.R. 
8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019. I thank Chairman 
Nadler, Speaker Pelosi, Congressman Thompson, and Congressman King for 
making gun violence prevention a priority in this Congress. I am so 
proud to be an original cosponsor of this historic legislation.
  As many of you may know, gun violence is an issue that is deeply 
personal for me. Gun violence prevention and a desire to make 
meaningful change is the very reason I am here today, in this 
legislative body, speaking to every one of you.
  In 2012, my son, Jordan Davis, was shot and killed by a man who 
opened fire on a car of unarmed teenagers at a gas station in 
Jacksonville, Florida. My son was only 17 years of age. Jordan would 
have turned 24 this month.
  After my son's death, I dedicated my entire life to advocating for 
commonsense gun safety solutions, but it was the shooting at Marjory 
Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, last year, that 
finally motivated me to join this legislative body.

  The overwhelming bipartisan support for universal background checks 
symbolizes the power of advocacy and the incredible power of the 
survivors, family members, and students who have shared their stories 
as they advocate for commonsense gun safety solutions and demand that 
we act to address gun violence.
  Today, we are truly taking this action. H.R. 8 will ensure that 
mothers and fathers have one less reason to worry. It will give 
students one less thing to fear when they walk into a school. Most 
importantly, it will make our communities and our Nation a safer place 
to live, and every human being in America deserves such.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 8, the 
Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019. It is time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Steube).
  Mr. STEUBE. Mr. Chairman, today, I rise in opposition to H.R. 8.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation claims to be a solution to gun 
violence, yet does nothing to actually solve the real problems that 
contribute to this crisis. As it stands now, this legislation does 
nothing to make our schools, churches, or communities safer. In fact, 
it only infringes on the constitutionally guaranteed Second Amendment 
rights of law-abiding American citizens, something I cannot support.
  This bill will criminalize the private transfer of firearms and will 
make exercising basic constitutional rights impossibly expensive for 
millions of law-abiding Americans. Not to mention, it is essentially 
unenforceable without a national gun registry. But, let's be honest, 
that is where my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to end 
up: registering firearms so they can systematically take them away. We 
must stop our Nation from falling down this slippery slope.
  I think we can all agree that something needs to be done to stop the 
illegal ownership and misuse of firearms, but H.R. 8 is not the answer. 
This legislation would have done nothing to prevent many of the 
prominent tragedies that occurred in my home State of Florida.
  The shooter at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland 
passed a background check. The shooter at the Pulse nightclub in 
Orlando passed a background check. And, just weeks ago, a man who 
murdered five women in my district passed a background check.
  H.R. 8 would have done nothing to stop these violent acts, just like 
the previous attempts to require universal background checks have done 
nothing to prevent actual crimes.
  If Democrats are serious about gun violence, they would have voted 
for my amendment. I filed an amendment in committee that would have 
required law enforcement to be notified upon the attempt of someone to 
purchase a firearm and failed a background check. Law enforcement would 
have been notified. But instead of supporting policies that curtail 
legal possession of firearms, the Democrats on both the Judiciary 
Committee and the Rules Committee rejected my proposal. How is that 
unreasonable?
  Mr. Chairman, I stand for the Constitution. I stand for freedom. And 
I stand for the Second Amendment. That is why I am not voting for this 
proposal.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I will point out that the bill says:

       Nothing in this act . . . shall be construed to authorize 
     the establishment, directly or indirectly, of a national 
     firearms registry.

  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Speaker of the House.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and I 
thank him for his leadership as chair of the Judiciary Committee, for 
bringing us to this place promptly. It is an historic day in the 
Congress of the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank our distinguished colleague from California, 
Mr.   Mike Thompson, for his relentless, persistent leadership to make 
America safer by bringing forth commonsense background check 
legislation. He is a gun owner and a veteran. He has been on both sides 
of the gun. He is a hunter. He is an advocate for the Second Amendment. 
And, as he said, if this had anything to diminish that, he would not 
have his name on it.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this strong, bipartisan bill and 
join Mr. Thompson in commending Mr. King of New York for making this 
initiative bipartisan from the start, in the previous Congress and now. 
It is a long, overdue commonsense action to end the epidemic of gun 
violence in America.
  Let us salute, again, the persistent leadership of so many in this 
body. And, again, Mr. Thompson, as chair of the Gun Violence Prevention 
Task Force; he has worked in a bipartisan way to protect our 
communities, and we are grateful to him for that.
  We can do all the inside maneuvering that we want, and that is really 
important and essential, but, without the outside mobilization, we 
cannot enjoy the success of saving lives and making progress. So I want 
to thank the courageous advocates who are here today, in the gallery, 
including March for Our Lives and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in 
America, and so many more. They have made a complete difference.
  As President Lincoln said: ``Public sentiment is everything. With it 
you can accomplish almost anything, without it almost nothing.''
  I thank them for building public sentiment to a point where now about 
90 percent of the American people support commonsense background check 
legislation, including many members, courageously, of the National 
Rifle Association.
  This bill is proudly bipartisan because gun violence prevention 
should not be a Democratic or Republican issue. Gun violence does not 
discriminate by party or politics. It reaches into all of our 
communities, our schools, our places of worship, our workplaces, and 
our streets, and it will require all of our courage to defeat it.

  Last night, we were at an occasion to mark the 25th anniversary of 
the Brady Bill. Some of us were in Congress at that time. Many of us 
here, then or not, admire the courageous work of Sarah and Jim Brady to 
make the country a safer place by reducing gun violence.
  Twenty-five years ago, we enacted the Brady background check system, 
which has denied more than 3 million sales to potentially dangerous 
individuals. Yet, the Brady Bill does not stop people from purchasing 
guns from unlicensed sellers without a background check at gun shows 
and online.
  We must pass H.R. 8 to close this dangerous loophole and keep our 
communities safe from gun violence. That is what we are intending to do 
today.

[[Page H2247]]

  George Bernard Shaw said that: ``It is the mark of a truly 
intelligent person to be moved by statistics,'' and here are the facts:
  Nearly 40,000 lives are cut short every year from gun violence.
  An average of 47 children and teenagers are killed by guns every 
single day. As I said, it is all about the children, the children, the 
children.
  We read about the tragic mass murders that have happened in our 
country, and they stir us to action, hopefully. Here it has been they 
stir us to a moment of silence, and now, finally, to action.

                              {time}  1300

  But it is every day. Every day 47 children and teenagers killed by 
guns.
  And, again, another figure, hearkening back to 90 percent of the 
American people want commonsense universal background checks.
  The statistics spell out the stories, but it is the human personal 
stories that change minds.
  How moving it was to hear our colleague, Congresswoman McBath, with 
her generosity of spirit tell her personal story of losing her son, 
Jordan--I can't even imagine carrying that burden--but turning her 
grief and her tragedy into action and courage to run for Congress, to 
stand on this floor and share her personal story with us. That takes 
real courage.
  Let's hope that we all have the courage to save children's lives, 
everyone's lives in our country whose deaths can be avoided.
  There is no person in this body whose political survival is more 
important than the survival of our children.
  We are grateful, again, to the young people, parents, survivors 
across America who have told their stories, marched for their lives, 
and demanded change. This bill delivers that change, ensuring that 
people who are a danger to themselves and others cannot purchase a gun 
and perpetuate violence in our communities.
  This week, the House will build on this progress by passing another 
bipartisan background check bill. We must close the Charleston loophole 
that enabled the horrific hate crime at Emanuel African Methodist 
Episcopal Church.
  We salute the majority whip, Mr. Clyburn, for his leadership on H.R. 
1112.
  Tomorrow, we will vote on that. That is another part of strengthening 
the background check provisions.
  As Members of Congress, again, we take an oath to protect and defend 
the Constitution, the American people. To honor that oath, to honor the 
victims of gun violence and their families, Congress must take real 
action on this floor. Today, we must pass this bill and take the first 
steps toward ending the senseless crisis of gun violence in our Nation.
  Again, I hope that all of us will have the courage to save lives, 
remembering that no one's political survival here is more important 
than the survival of the American people--especially our children.
  I urge a strong bipartisan ``yes'' vote and pray that we can do the 
right thing and send a clear message to the families of those who have 
lost their loved ones to gun violence, that we have crossed a threshold 
here today to reduce gun violence in our country and take more steps to 
improve the safety of the American people, honoring the Constitution of 
the United States, respectful of our hunters and the need for people to 
defend themselves, but doing so in a way that does not endanger others.
  The CHAIR. Members are reminded to avoid referencing occupants of the 
gallery.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I agree. I believe facts are 
important, and I believe the strength to tell that. I believe the 
chairman just redid that. He exactly explained why this bill will not 
operate because of the very fact that, inside the bill itself, it does 
not have a registry, which I will remind the Chair that the Department 
of Justice under President Obama said a universal background check bill 
will not work without a registry and is on the websites of many 
advocates for this bill. That is just one of the areas that we look at 
as we go forward in realizing that this has already gutted itself when 
we look at the bill.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Cline).
  Mr. CLINE. Mr. Chair, I want to thank the previous speaker, the 
Speaker of the House, reminding us all that it is California where 
Michael Bloomberg and the gun control advocates have established their 
utopia of a land without guns. And what has it led us to? With some of 
the strictest gun control laws in the land, we have some of the worst 
incidents of gun violence in the country.
  Gun control measures do not address the problems of gun violence, and 
this bill will not address gun violence.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 8. The legislation is 
an attempt to take away our Second Amendment rights, hidden under the 
guise that we will see a reduction in violent crime.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim the bill would 
save lives, but nothing in this bill would have stopped any of the 
recent mass casualty shootings that have occurred in our country. The 
only thing this bill does is limit the Second Amendment rights of law-
abiding citizens.
  They will tell you this bill closes loopholes; however, the loophole 
that they believe exists is private gun ownership, and what they really 
want is to regulate the private transfer of firearms. If my neighbor is 
in trouble and needs to borrow a firearm to protect his family, I 
should be allowed to loan that firearm to my neighbor so that he can 
protect himself and his family.
  This is not something we should need to go to the Federal Government 
to get permission to do. The Second Amendment does not say that, after 
you get permission from the government, your right to keep and bear 
arms shall not be infringed.
  Our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution to protect us from the 
government and gave individuals the Second Amendment to protect 
themselves.
  I carry this Constitution every day on the campaign trail asphalt. I 
carry it with me every day now to remind myself of those protections 
that were given to us--not by government, but by God.
  This bill is nothing more than an attempt to advance the agenda of 
radical gun-grabbers and lay the foundation for a national gun 
registration scheme. Mr. Chair, I urge the House to reject this 
misguided legislation so we can begin having real discussions about 
ways to reduce crime across this great Nation.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Garcia), a member of the committee.
  Ms. GARCIA of Texas. Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman for yielding, 
and I rise today to express my strong support for this bill, the 
Bipartisan Background Checks Act.
  Since the Brady law was enacted in 1994, many American lives have 
been saved, murders have fallen by at least 32 percent, and our 
community streets are safer and stronger as a result. But our work is 
not done. In Houston alone, we see an average of 550 acts of gun 
violence per year.
  Too many of our loved ones are lost to senseless gun violence that 
could be prevented by keeping firearms out of dangerous hands. We know 
expanded background checks work.
  States requiring background checks on all handgun sales see half as 
many mass shootings as States without the expanded requirements. That 
is why I am a proud cosponsor of H.R. 8. This commonsense bill will 
prevent private firearm sales to prohibit purchasers and close online 
and gun show loopholes.
  While this bill does not cover everything, it is a step in the right 
direction that will make my district--Houston, Texas--and this country 
safer.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chair, may I request the time for both 
sides, please.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia has 11\1/2\ minutes remaining. 
The gentleman from New York has 16\3/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).
  Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Chair, my name is Pete Stauber, and I was a law 
enforcement officer for 23 years in the great State of Minnesota, the 
city of Duluth.
  In December of 1995, at 10:32 p.m., at the intersection of 6th Avenue 
East and 4th Street in Duluth, Minnesota, a criminal who should not 
have had a

[[Page H2248]]

firearm tried to take my life. I was shot in the head, and by the grace 
of God, I survived.
  A few years after that, while on duty in a hostage situation, another 
criminal pulled a gun on me. Face-to-face, I was staring down the 
barrel of a handgun. The suspect pulled the trigger. The gun 
malfunctioned, and I was in a fight for my life. When it was all over, 
by the grace of God, I was alive. The individual was handcuffed.
  Both those individuals were career criminals.
  Back to when I was shot in the head, Mr. Chair: I begged the U.S. 
attorney, along with our police department, to charge the individual 
with possession of a handgun by a felon. They didn't do it. That 
individual was allowed to circumvent our community for another 8 years 
before he was finally put in prison, where he belonged. No more harming 
other people.
  Representative Collins' Mass Violence Prevention Act gets the county 
attorneys and our Federal attorneys present to prosecute these 
individuals who have no respect for life.
  I carried a handgun for 23 years, Mr. Chair, as a tool to defend my 
life or somebody else's life from great bodily harm. I support the 
individual right of law-abiding citizens, the right to keep and bear 
arms.
  Both my wife and I live in rural Minnesota. When we need to protect 
ourselves, when it takes awhile for law enforcement to get there, we 
have the ability.
  There is nobody I know who wants somebody who is going through a 
mental health issue or a career criminal or a drug dealer to have 
these.
  We need to start respecting life. Life is precious, from conception 
to natural death. I am a very proud husband of an Iraq war veteran who 
understands the value of life.
  Mr. Chair, I rise against this. There are better ways to get mothers 
and fathers, county attorneys, Federal prosecutors, local police 
departments, and sheriff departments to work together to have a fusion 
center so, when a young individual types into a computer ``I want to be 
a mass school shooter,'' there is an instant response to identify the 
individual and work through it.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch), a member of the committee.
  Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Chair, we introduced H.R. 8 8 years ago after our 
friend and former colleague, Gabby Giffords, was shot and nearly 
killed.
  When she was by our side to introduce the bill, she said: ``Speaking 
is still difficult for me, but I don't think I can make myself more 
clear: Congress must act to make our country safer from gun violence.''
  Now is that time. We have waited too long to close loopholes that let 
people easily avoid background checks through private sales. I have 
cried with too many survivors and attended too many funerals. I have 
marched with too many student activists, and I have bowed my head 
through too many moments of silence.
  We know strong gun laws work. In the 25 years since the Brady law 
took effect, background checks have stopped more than $3 million in gun 
sales and have saved countless lives.
  It is time to expand the Brady law. It is time to close the dangerous 
loopholes. It is past time for Congress to take action to save lives 
from gun violence.
  Mr. Chair, this is not a moment of silence. This is not a sit-in. 
This is action by the United States House of Representatives on behalf 
of everyone who has pled for that action after San Bernardino and after 
Sutherland Springs and after Fort Hood and after Virginia Tech and 
after Columbine and Sandy Hook and Las Vegas and Pulse and everyday gun 
violence in our communities and, yes, after Parkland.
  Let's represent the 95 percent of the American people who want us to 
take this action to help save lives. Let's pass H.R. 8.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chair, before I yield to the gentlelady, 
it has been quoted here, especially, 90 to 95 percent of the people 
want universal background checks. And everything has statistics, a 
poll, but when actually put to the voters of Maine, the voters of Maine 
actually rejected it, and I understand where they are coming from on 
that.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Smith).

  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Chair, I rise today to defend the Second 
Amendment rights of law-abiding Nebraskans.
  In Nebraska, the need for firearms is the same today as it was even 
when the Second Amendment was enacted before we were even a territory 
of the United States.
  Rural Nebraskans depend on their firearms for self-defense and for 
protecting their livestock. They also know how to handle firearms, to 
store them securely, to handle them appropriately, and perhaps to even 
let neighbors who are able to use them safely borrow them to meet their 
needs.
  I have serious concerns. The bills we are considering today and 
tomorrow are going to criminalize this behavior for Nebraskans who have 
done this for generations and won't even know that they are breaking 
the law.
  Should a rancher who lends a rifle to a neighbor to address threats 
from predatory animals face a year in prison and a $100,000 fine? No.
  Should a legally carrying farmer who is injured at work be subject to 
arrest for handing his firearm off before being taken to the hospital? 
No.
  These are exactly the situations this bill would create, while doing 
little to address the real problems underlying crime in our society.
  Mr. Chair, this is a bad bill, and I urge its swift rejection.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman, and I certainly 
thank the ranking member for being present here today. I hold up in my 
hand pages and pages of mass shootings, which I will include in the 
Record.

            List of Mass Shootings Since Columbine Massacre

                    (By Zayed Abdalla, Feb 20, 2018)

       Below is a list of all mass shootings in the United States 
     which occurred after the Columbine High School Massacre. 
     Dates and death tolls (excluding the shooter) are included. 
     Although many other mass shootings have occurred, for the 
     sake of time and physical space, only shootings involving the 
     death of five or more people have been included in this 
     article.
       1. Columbine High School Shooting, Littleton, Colorado--
     April 1999: 13 Dead
       2. Atlanta Shootings, Atlanta, Georgia--July 1999: 12 Dead
       3. Wedgwood Baptist Church shooting, Fort Worth, Texas--
     September 1999: 7 Dead
       4. Xerox Killings, Honolulu, Hawaii--November 1999: 7 Dead
       5. Tampa Hotel Shootings, Tampa, Florida--December 1999: 5 
     Dead
       6. Wakefield Massacre, Wakefield, Massachusetts--December 
     2000: 7 Dead
       7. Lockheed Martin Shooting, Median, Mississippi--July 
     2003: 6 Dead
       8. Living Church of God Shooting, Brookfield, Wisconsin--
     March 2005: 7 Dead
       9. Red Lake High School, Red Lake Indian Reservation, 
     Minnesota--March 2005: 9 Dead
       10. Goleta Postal Shootings, Goleta, California--January 
     2006: 7 Dead
       11. Capitol Hill Massacre, Seattle Washington--March 2006: 
     6 Dead
       12. West Nickel Mines Amish School, Nickel Mines, 
     Pennsylvania--October 2006: 5 Dead
       13. Tolley Square Shooting, Salt Lake City, Utah--February 
     2007: 5 Dead
       14. Virginia Tech University, Blacksburg, Virginia--April 
     2007: 32 Dead
       15. Crandon Shooting, Crandon Wisconsin--October 2007: 6 
     Dead
       16. Westroads Mall Shooting, Omaha Nebraska--December 2007: 
     8 Dead
       17. Kirkwood City Council Shooting, Kirkwood, Missouri--
     February 2008: 6 Dead
       18. Northern Illinois University, Dekalb, Illinois--
     February 2008: 5 Dead
       19. Atlantis Plastics Shooting, Henderson Kentucky--June 
     2008: 5 Dead
       20. Carthage Nursing Home Shooting--Carthage, North 
     Carolina--March 2009: 8 Dead
       21. Geneva County Massacre, Geneva and Samson, Alabama--
     March 2009: 10 Dead
       22. Binghampton Shootings, Binghampton--April 2009: 13 Dead
       23. Fort Hood Shooting, Fort Hood, Texas--November 2009: 13 
     Dead
       24. Hartford Beer Distributor Shooting, Manchester, 
     Connecticut--August 2010: 8 Dead
       25. Tucson Shooting, Tucson, Arizona--January 2011: 6 Dead
       26. Seal Beach Shooting, Seal Beach, California--October 
     2011: 8 Dead
       27. Oikos University, Oakland, California--April 2012: 7 
     Dead
       28. Seattle Cafe Shooting, Seattle, Washington--May 2012: 5 
     Dead
       29. Aurora Shooting, Aurora, Colorado--July 2012: 12 Dead
       30. Sikh Temple Shooting, Oak Creek, Wisconsin--August 
     2012: 6 Dead

[[Page H2249]]

  

       31. Accent Signage Systems Shooting, Minneapolis, 
     Minnesota--September 2012: 6 Dead
       32. Sandy Hook Elementary School, Newtown, Connecticut--
     December 2012: 27 Dead
       33. Santa Monica College, Santa Monica, California--June 
     2013: 5 Dead
       34. Hialeah Shooting, Hialeah, Florida--July 2013: 6 Dead
       35. Washington Navy Yard Shooting, Washington D.C.--
     September 2013: 12 Dead
       36. University of California Santa Barbara, Isla Vista, 
     California--May 2014: 6 Dead
       37. Marysville Pilchuck High School, Marysville, 
     Washington--October 2014: 4 Dead
       38. Charleston Church Shooting, Charleston, South 
     Carolina--June 2015: 9 Dead
       39. Chattanooga Military Recruitment Center, Chattanooga 
     Tennessee--July 2015: 5 Dead
       40. Umpqua Community College, Roseburg, Oregon--October 
     2015: 9 Dead
       41. San Bernardino Attack, San Bernardino, California--
     December 2015: 14 Dead
       42. Kalamazoo Shooting Spree, Kalamazoo County, Michigan--
     February 2016: 6 Dead
       43. Orlando Night-club Shooting, Orlando, Florida--June 
     2016: 49 Dead
       44. Dallas Police Shooting, Dallas Texas--July 2016: 5 Dead
       45. Cascade Mall Shooting, Burlington, Washington--
     September 2016: 5 Dead
       46. Fort Lauderdale Airport Shooting, Fort Lauderdale, 
     Florida- January 2017: 5 Dead
       47. Las Vegas Shooting, Las Vegas, Nevada--October 2017: 58 
     Dead
       48. Sutherland Springs Church, Sutherland Springs, Texas--
     November 2017: 26 Dead
       49. Rancho Tehama Shooting, Rancho Tehama, California--
     November 2017: 5 Dead
       50. Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, Parkland, 
     Florida--February 2018: 17 Dead
       According to The Washington Post, since 1966, 1077 
     individuals have been fatally shot and wounded as a result of 
     mass shootings in which more than four people perished; 
     Children and teenagers compose about a tenth of these 
     fatalities. Almost 300 guns have been obtained by authorities 
     in these shootings, and over half of them were obtained 
     legally. The AR-15 rifle has been increasingly used in such 
     shootings, with the latest being in this month's most recent 
     high school shooting in Florida. It is estimated that more 
     than 8 million of these weapons are owned in American 
     households. The trend in mass shootings has been rising 
     notably since 2006-07.

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I thank Moms Demand Action, and I thank 
all those who have offered themselves in this fight. I thank our chair, 
Mr. Thompson, for his constant and persistent work.
  Through my tenure as ranking member of the Crime, Terrorism, Homeland 
Security, and Investigations Subcommittee, and now third in seniority 
on the Judiciary Committee, it has given me a picture that many have 
not seen, and that is that we have been fighting for gun safety 
legislation for almost three decades.
  It seems that even though Mr. Cohen is in a hearing right now where 
facts are being disputed, there are no facts to dispute the fact that 
people die from guns. And those who get guns are never regulated.
  By no means do I want you not to have a handgun to protect yourself, 
or to enforce gun trafficking laws, or to make sure that prosecutors 
prosecute those for gun possession, but it begs the question. What is 
the question? The interpretation of the Second Amendment is no one 
should prohibit the right to bear arms. As I stand here today, there is 
nothing in the underlying bill that is prohibiting that.
  It is simply common sense and giving dignity to those who died at the 
Columbine High School shooting, the Atlanta shooting, the Wedgwood 
Baptist Church shooting, the Lockheed Martin shooting, the Living 
Church of God shooting, the Red Lake High School shooting, the Northern 
Illinois University shooting, the Santa Fe shooting in Texas, the 
Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, and the Sutherland 
Springs church shooting in Texas.
  It says that you have to have a check, a background check. It closes 
the gun show loophole. It gives exemptions for the issues of domestic 
violence and sexual assault. It allows families to transfer, and 
ranchers, farmers, and fishers to transfer.
  My God, what more do we want? People have died. Are we not going to 
show that we are committed to saving lives, not to abuse the Second 
Amendment, to misuse it? We can bear arms. But the question is whether 
or not we will recognize that there are 350-plus million Americans, and 
there are more guns in this country than there are citizens.
  I beg of my colleagues: Stop the violence. Vote for this bill.
  Mr. Chair, as a senior member of the Judiciary Committee and an 
original co-sponsor, I rise in strong of H.R. 8, the ``Bipartisan 
Background Checks Act of 2019,'' legislation that strengthens 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 means of 
ensuring firearms do not end up in the wrong hands.
  An internal assessment by the Federal Bureau of investigation (FBI) 
demonstrated that the National Instant Criminal Background Checks 
System (``NICS'') yields results that are approximately 99.3 percent to 
99.8 percent accurate, and in 90 percent of cases, are processed within 
90 seconds.
  We must be constructive and proactive in our response to 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 and 
Prevention (``CDC'') 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 2015.
  In December 2012, a gunman walked into Sandy Hook Elementary School 
in Newtown, Connecticut, and killed 20 children, 6 adults, and himself.
  Since December 2012, there have been at least 1,518 mass shootings, 
with at least 1,715 people killed and 6,089 wounded.
  On the night of October 1, 2017, a gunman opened fire on a large 
crowd of concertgoers at the Route 91 Harvest Music Festival on the Las 
Vegas Strip, leaving 58 people dead and 527 injured.
  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 CDC 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.
  This is why legislation put forward to arm teachers is not the 
solution.
  Stronger legislation is needed to prevent guns from getting into the 
wrong hands because unfortunately, more than 75 percent of the weapons 
used in mass shootings between 1982 and 2012 were obtained legally.
  We must look at gun violence in its totality to determine what are 
the root causes of these alarming rates of lives cut short.
  We are elected by our constituents to lead in resolving the issues 
that plague our country, and the issue of gun violence is a definite 
plague across the nation.
  My good friend, Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo, gave a statement 
after four of his officers were shot while on duty.
  He rightfully admonished us elected officials who, so far, have 
accomplished absolutely nothing about the public-health epidemic of gun 
violence.
  Thanks to the new Democratic majority in Congress, we had a long 
overdue Gun Safety Hearing in the Judiciary Committee.
  That hearing is the first step in the legislative process of 
addressing the epidemic.

[[Page H2250]]

  Chief Acevedo was a witness at that hearing, testifying that if the 
proposed legislation on background checks is enacted and saves at least 
one life, then it is worth it.
  I want to take this opportunity to thank my colleague, Congressman 
Mike Thompson, for his leadership of the Gun Violence Prevention Task 
Force and for introducing this timely and important legislation.
  Congressman Thompson sat in the audience during the entirety of the 
Gun Safety Hearing on February 13, 2019, demonstrating his longstanding 
commitment to the issue.
  Also helping to bring us to this point today is Congresswoman Robin 
Kelly of Illinois, who represents one of the most affected districts 
when it comes to gun violence.
  She is a valiant leader who will not rest until the Congress finds 
solutions for communities like hers and others all over this country.
  I want to thank Aalayah Eastmond, a survivor from the Parkland School 
Shooting, for testifying as a witness at the House Judiciary Gun Safety 
Hearing.
  Her heartfelt and vivid testimony was met with a standing ovation by 
the crowded audience in the hearing.
  Back in my state, despite incident after incident of rampant gun 
violence, Texas Governor Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton, 
both prominent Republican opponents of gun control, issued the usual 
statements offering the usual thoughts and prayers.
  Chief Acevedo said, ``I appreciate your prayers . . . but the 
question is, what are policymakers willing to do, besides prayers, to 
address a public-health epidemic?''
  I want to answer his question--``what ARE we going to do?''
  We are going to overcome the fierce opposition from House minority 
members.
  We are going to overcome a recalcitrant and reluctant Senate.
  And finally, we are going to overcome the opposition of the President 
and the gun lobby.
  I am a defender and supporter of the Constitution.
  I appreciate the Second Amendment and the right that it provides our 
citizens.
  However, I am also a defender of the right to live, the greatest 
divine right of all.
  I want all Americans to enjoy their Second Amendment right, but not 
at the expense of the lives of our children, students, communities, and 
law enforcement officials.
  Imagine going to grade school in this day and age and having to 
undergo ``active shooter'' drills.
  Imagine having children in grade school today.
  Imagine the anxiety parents feel knowing that any day the precious 
lives of their children may be interrupted by someone with an AK-47 or 
AR-15.
  Imagine a brighter future for America's children, one that does not 
include active shooter drills and funerals for adolescents.
  We can help make that future a reality and we can start by voting to 
pass H.R. 8, the ``Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019.''
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Byrne).
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. Let's 
be very clear on this: H.R. 8 will not prevent criminals from getting 
their hands on firearms. What H.R. 8 will do is violate the 
constitutional rights of millions of Americans.
  Under this bill, almost every time a lawful gun owner wants to 
transfer or sell a gun, he or she will have to go through a government-
sanctioned intermediary. Under this bill, no longer could I let my 
cousin or my neighbor borrow my gun. If this bill becomes law, 
overnight, millions of law-abiding gun owners could suddenly be subject 
to Federal prosecution. Of course, we all know that criminals are going 
to do what they already do: make illegal transfers of firearms.
  We have heard a lot about how this is going to be the most open 
Congress in history. Well, Mr. Chair, I filed an amendment that would 
strip out the text of H.R. 8 and replace it with a nationwide concealed 
carry reciprocity. Mr. Chair, the Democratic leadership blocked a vote 
on my amendment. What are they so afraid of? I guess they think they 
can shield their Members from votes to protect the Second Amendment and 
benefit our Nation's law-abiding gun owners.
  Mr. Chair, I have news for the majority. Gun owners of America are 
watching this debate. They know what H.R. 8 is all about, and they know 
that this is just a sham to chip away at the Second Amendment and our 
Constitution.
  I will oppose this bill and any bill that goes against the Second 
Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans. I urge my colleagues to join 
me in voting ``no'' and fighting against this assault on the Second 
Amendment.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Chair, I thank my friend, the chairman, for yielding.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of this bipartisan bill. Atlanta, 
Chicago, Pittsburgh, Parkland, Charleston, Oak Creek, Newtown, Orlando, 
Las Vegas, and many other places: How many more must suffer? How many 
more must die?
  For years, the people spoke up. Mothers called. Fathers cried. 
Students marched. But Congress offered a blind eye or a deaf ear to 
their cries.
  Today, we say to those who begged and pleaded for us to act that we 
see you. We feel your pain. We heard your cries, and we are going to 
answer today, now.
  We sat in on this floor. I want to thank the chair of our task force, 
  Mike Thompson, for never giving up, for never giving in, for keeping 
the faith, for keeping your eyes on the prize. We are doing the right 
thing today.
  We have a mission. We have an obligation and a mandate to pass this 
bipartisan bill that must become public law.
  Today, I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote 
``yes.'' It is good. It is the right thing to do to save lives and to 
stop this madness.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 
8. I commend the efforts of Congressman   Mike Thompson from California 
for introducing this commonsense legislation.
  What it simply does is require that all sales of firearms go through 
a licensed firearms dealer who has to run a background check. Current 
law mandates that all licensed gun dealers, before transferring a 
weapon, have to perform a background check.
  The problem we have in this country is the law allows unlicensed 
firearms dealers competing with licensed firearms dealers to sell just 
as many firearms as a licensed gun dealer, but without doing the 
background check. That enables criminals and people who should not have 
weapons to have firearms, and that contributes to the proliferation of 
weaponry on our streets in the hands of those who should not have them.
  It produces violence, and we are looking to stop the violence with 
this legislation, and so I ask my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Swalwell).
  Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Chair, today, we tell our fellow 
Americans that their children's right to learn without fear; that their 
own right to dance at a concert, worship at a synagogue, shop at the 
mall; that all those rights to come home, to live, and to love are 
greater than any other right in the Constitution.
  This bill puts in place an expansion of violent history checks on 
firearm purchases where there were too many gaps before.
  It will not end every gun violence death in America, but we should 
try. It also will get rid of this argument about States like California 
and Illinois, where you have gun violence. You can no longer say, well, 
they have tough background checks there, so it is not working. Well, 
no, we are only as safe as the lowest common denominator. If our States 
like Nevada and Arizona have low restrictions when it comes to 
purchasing a firearm, we are only as safe as they are.
  We will have a nationwide background check that will make sure that 
all of us are safe. We are here, Mr. Chair, because of Mr. Thompson, 
because of Moms Demand Action, because of Everytown for Gun Safety, and 
because of March For Our Lives.
  Keep marching. You got us to this point.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, how much time is remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from New York has 9\1/4\ minutes remaining. 
The gentleman from Georgia has 5\3/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Brown).

[[Page H2251]]

  

  Mr. BROWN of Maryland. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 8. This 
bill is long overdue. For too long, Congress has failed to end the 
cycle of gun violence and death that too many families are now familiar 
with.
  In 2017 alone, 40,000 people died from gun violence. Congress did 
nothing. Last year, five reporters at the Capital Gazette in my 
district were murdered in cold blood in a mass shooting that took place 
in their newsroom. Congress did nothing.
  Gun violence is a crisis in our communities and a real national 
emergency that will no longer be met with inaction.
  For the first time since Congress passed the Brady Handgun Violence 
Prevention Act of 1994, we will pass a bill in pursuit of our effort to 
protect our communities and end this scourge of gun violence.
  The American people overwhelmingly want us to act. For the people, we 
will pass universal background checks out of the House as our first 
piece of comprehensive gun safety reform.
  Mr. Chair, today is only the beginning.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I continue to reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean), a member of the committee.
  Ms. DEAN. Mr. Chair, I am delighted that we are finally at this day, 
because you know the tide, you know the toll that takes place every 
day. On average, every day in America, 342 people are shot: murders, 
assaults, suicides, or suicide attempts. That means every single day--
yesterday, tomorrow, and the next day, and the next day--100 people, on 
average, will die of gun violence and another 200 or more will 
literally be wounded or shot in the crossfire.
  We know that, in 2017, more than 39,000, nearly 40,000 people died of 
gun violence, all kinds of gun violence. That was an extraordinary 
uptick in gun violence.
  I carry with me today the picture of Ben Wheeler, whose courageous 
mother testified before the Pennsylvania House of Representatives in 
2014.
  I carry with me today a picture of Ron, the son of my dear friend, 
Marge, who died of gun violence by suicide.
  I carry with me, not by picture, but in my heart, the 16-year-old son 
of my former student at La Salle University who was shot in random gun 
violence in the city of Philadelphia.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 8. In conclusion, Mr. 
Chair, I long for the day when orange ribbons are obsolete and when 
orange scarves are a fashion statement, not a cry for help.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I continue to reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), a member of the committee.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Chair, just 2 weeks ago in my district, six lives 
and six families were forever changed by gun violence in a 6-day 
period. Four people were killed and two were injured in six different 
shootings. One person was 28. The other five were 16, 17, and 18. They 
were teenagers. My heart goes out to all of those victims' families.
  Thoughts and prayers are no longer enough. It is long past time that 
our actions speak louder than our words. No matter which State we are 
from, with over 40,000 gun violence deaths last year, every State has 
been severely impacted by gun violence.
  The public health crisis has been politicized and weaponized as a 
means to divide us, despite the fact that it is a crisis that should 
bind us together, and we must come together.

                              {time}  1330

  Background checks are the foundation of commonsense gun policy, and 
they are supported by the overwhelming majority of Americans. Our 
current system fails us in two ways, but the bills we are looking at 
this week are designed to address that.
  Under current law, firearm sales can proceed regardless if a good 
background check comes back within a 3-day period, and it doesn't 
capture all the sales. So this puts an incredible burden on law 
enforcement and an incredible burden on ATF agents who have to go and 
reclaim guns that are sold, despite the owner of the gun not being able 
to pass the background check. So for too long those in a position to 
act have failed to do so. But that ends now.
  I strongly support the commonsense gun legislation in H.R. 8 and H.R. 
1112.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, again, I agree with the 
sentiment that we need to actually fashion something that will work. 
Unfortunately, this, for many reasons we have already stated, will not.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who is the distinguished majority leader.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  My friend, the gentleman from Georgia, just rose and said that this 
won't work. We have risen on this floor time after time after time 
after time and had a moment of silence followed by no action.
  As I said time after time, we have had a moment of silence. I will 
tell my friend from Georgia that it hasn't worked. It has been 
appropriate, but it has not worked.
  Can we guarantee that this will work to make every person safe?
  It cannot. It will not. But I rise in strong support of doing 
something, and in this case doing something that 90 percent of America 
supports.
  Mr. Chairman, this House is finally going to do its job and take 
action--not just a moment of silence, but action--to address the 
epidemic of gun violence in our country.
  After the tragedies at Sandy Hook, Orlando, Las Vegas, Charleston, 
the Tree of Life synagogue, and Great Mills High School in my district, 
the House, under the previous leadership, did nothing. It didn't work.
  After the shooting just down the street at the Washington Navy Yard, 
the Republican-controlled House did nothing. Three of the victims of 
that attack were constituents of mine living in southern Maryland. Dr. 
Wendy Edmonds and Wanda Wallace are in the gallery, Mr. Chairman. They 
are the sisters of Sylvia Fraser, a Navy Yard shooting victim.
  Montana Geimer, daughter of Wendi Winters, a writer for the Capital 
Gazette of which my colleague, Mr. Brown, just spoke; and Mackenzie 
Boughey, a high school student who organized a March for Our Lives 
rally in Anne Arundel County, are here with us today not to have a 
moment of silence, but to have a moment of action.
  Many of our districts have been painfully affected by gun violence. 
In St. Mary's County in Maryland, as I told you, Mr. Chairman, a 
student was killed by a shooter at Great Mills High School, and a 
courageous school resources officer there saved countless other lives. 
In Annapolis, five staff members of the Capital Gazette were gunned 
down in their newsroom.
  For years, the American people have demanded action to address gun 
violence. After the Parkland shooting, just over a year ago, students 
marched in cities from coast to coast to demand that Congress protect 
them in the classroom, in the streets, in houses of worship, and in all 
public gathering places.
  I, as I am sure many of you have, had the opportunity to meet with 
many of the students who participated in the March for Our Lives and 
heard the determination in their voices as they spoke about working to 
achieve a future where students would no longer have to practice 
active-shooter drills in their schools. I found their courage and 
persistence deeply inspiring.
  Now, with a change in the majority control, we are bringing to the 
floor legislation supported by, as I said, nine out of ten Americans, 
including a majority of responsible gun owners to expand criminal 
background checks to make sure that those who have a criminal past, a 
past of violence--domestic or otherwise--a mental health problem, or 
are on the no-fly list because they are perceived as possibly 
terrorists, won't be able to buy a gun.
  Does that mean they won't get a gun?
  It does not. I understand that. But as I told my friend from Georgia, 
the moments of silence have not worked. They were appropriate, I 
understand, but they didn't work.

[[Page H2252]]

  We will also be voting this week on legislation offered by our whip, 
Mr. Clyburn, to close the loophole that contributed to the horrific 
mass shooting at Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston in 2015.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the Senate to follow the House and pass the 
legislation we advance, and I call on the President to sign it without 
delay.
  Mr. Chairman, let us not have a moment of silence for this 
legislation. Do not let it die. Do not let the hope that it provides 
die. Do not let us stand by one more time to lament the death of a 
constituent, a friend, a neighbor, a fellow citizen, who dies at the 
hand of a gun purchased illegally or by someone who should not have a 
gun.
  This is not about taking away guns. It is about preventing guns 
getting in the hands of people who do bad things, and we can predict 
that they are a danger to others. Let us not have a moment of silence 
for this bill. Let us pass it. Let the Senate pass it. Let the 
President sign it. Let's make an effort at least to stop the carnage.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the words of the majority leader. However, 
I will say that in the previous Congress, this Congress did pass Fix 
NICS. It also passed the STOP School Violence Act. I am sure, among 
other reasons, it is probably why the majority leader voted against 
those bills in which they were included.

  I do agree with him. The moments of silence may not have stopped, but 
it did call upon a higher power to realize that we are fragile human 
beings involved in tragedies. I will also remind the folks, and Mr. 
Chairman, yourself, that this bill will also not do what it has many 
times been promoted for it to do, because any of these mass violence 
episodes would not have been affected by this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Scalise).
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to these gun 
control bills that are being brought forward. They are brought forward 
under the guise of background checks.
  Let's look at what these bills would actually do. We had identified 
any number of problems with this bill that we were trying to improve, 
and every one of those was shut out, shut out by the Democratic 
majority who wanted to try to stifle the opposing side's debate because 
they think just saying background checks makes this a good bill.
  Let's talk about what this bill will do to make criminals--felons--
out of law-abiding citizens. If you loan your gun to a friend under 
this bill, maybe they are thinking of buying a similar gun to protect 
themselves and they want to go to a shooting range to see if this gun 
is the right kind of gun to protect themselves with, which they have a 
right to do under the Second Amendment of this Constitution, loaning 
your gun to that friend in that act would make you a felon subject to a 
year in jail and subject to a $100,000 fine, Mr. Chairman.
  We tried to fix that. They shut that amendment out.
  In this bill, if you loan your gun to a friend who maybe has been a 
victim of domestic violence--and one of my colleagues who is here in 
opposition to this bill is one of those victims of domestic violence. 
She had an amendment to fix this bill to say, if she has got a 
temporary restraining order against her boyfriend who has been beating 
her and she is afraid he is going to come back tonight, under one of 
the bills, if she goes to buy a gun tonight and the Fix NICS system 
isn't working, she may have 20 business days to get that gun.
  Now, good luck if the boyfriend shows up to beat her up that night 
and she says: Don't worry, I am on day 8. I only have another 12 days 
before I can buy the gun. Will you come back so I can defend myself 
then?
  Do you really think that is going to happen?
  You know what that means to her.
  So in the bill we said: What if you can loan your gun to her?
  She goes to a friend and says: I know you have a gun. I don't have a 
gun. I am trying to protect myself because I have got a TRO, but I know 
he is probably going to come back.
  Under this bill, you will be a felon, a year in jail, $100,000 fine. 
We tried to fix that, too, Mr. Chairman, and they shut that amendment 
out. That is what this bill does.
  Oh, by the way, we are talking about law-abiding citizens here. If 
you go hunting with a buddy and you try to loan your gun to a buddy, 
Mr. Chairman, they say there is an exemption in the bill. But it is 
written so vaguely that you not only need to bring your hunting 
partner, you might need to bring your attorney to find out if loaning 
your shotgun to your friend makes you a felon under this bill.
  These are law-abiding citizens. These are people who use guns to 
defend themselves, which is the basis of the Second Amendment. Our 
Founding Fathers believed every American has the right to defend 
themselves, because every day, on average, in this country guns are 
used by good people to defend themselves against bad people, and it is 
going to make it harder for them to get access to these guns to defend 
themselves. So, again, we tried to fix some of these problems.
  Mr. Chairman, let me tell you about another problem we tried to 
identify and fix. If you loan your gun, you will be a felon.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from 
Louisiana an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. SCALISE. So now we have identified areas where law-abiding 
citizens can become felons. We tried to fix it; they wanted that to 
stay in place.
  So what is that motivation?
  But then we identified another problem. If someone who is in this 
country illegally goes to buy a gun and the system flags them, and it 
says: Wait a minute, this person is not even here legally. They are 
breaking Federal law trying to buy a gun. We said that we should notify 
ICE so at least our Border Patrol agents in the interior can deport 
them. They blocked that amendment.
  So now a law-abiding citizen can become a felon under their bill, but 
someone who is here illegally trying to buy a gun in violation of the 
law can't be turned over to authorities. This is a bad gun control 
bill, and we ought to reject it.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out the penalty in 
this bill that is being cited as $100,000 is in fact $1,000.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I request of the chairman: Does 
he have any more speakers at this time?
  Mr. NADLER. Yes, I have one more.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.


                       Announcement by the Chair

  The CHAIR. The Chair will remind all persons in the gallery that they 
are here as guests of the House and that any manifestation of approval 
or disapproval of proceedings is in violation of the rules of the 
House.
  Members are reminded to avoid referencing occupants of the gallery.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thompson), who is the distinguished author of the bill.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  I was asked to talk about some of the outrageous allegations that 
were made about this bill, and the chairman already cleared one up, and 
that is the $100,000 fine that we are hearing from the other side. It 
is $1,000, as was pointed out.
  We also heard that this isn't constitutional. Well, the Constitution 
is pretty clear: Individuals have a right to bear arms. Nobody is 
disputing that. As a matter of fact, it was settled in District of 
Columbia v. Heller.
  But also in that opinion were Justice Scalia's remarks that stated 
that government also has a responsibility and a right to regulate 
firearms. That is all we are doing.
  We are saying that people who are felons, domestic abusers, 
dangerously mentally ill, a danger to themselves or others shouldn't be 
able to have guns. I don't think anybody can dispute that. And how do 
you find out if you don't do a background check?
  My friends on the other side of the aisle said this won't work. We 
have

[[Page H2253]]

heard it a hundred times: This won't work. Well, we have been working 
on this for 6\1/2\ years, ever since Sandy Hook. We have pleaded with 
the other side to work with us, have a hearing.
  What are your ideas?
  Absolute silence from them. Absolute silence.
  This does work. We know that licensed dealers stop the sale of 
firearms to 170 felons every day and 50 domestic abusers every day 
because they are required to do background checks.
  But in some States, that same individual can be found to be 
prohibited, walk outside and go to a gun show or go online and buy a 
gun without the benefit of a background check--and that is wrong.
  Countless speakers from the other side of the aisle said this 
wouldn't have stopped this crime, this wouldn't have stopped this mass 
shooting, this wouldn't have stopped that mass shooting. Well, my 
friends, if that is your standard, if you will only support a bill that 
will stop every mass shooting, that will stop every death by a firearm, 
that means you want to get rid of all guns, and no one on this side of 
the aisle is saying that.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. The only way you can ensure that there 
will never be another person murdered by someone with a gun is to do 
away with all guns. We recognized that from day one.
  Numerous speakers have said, just today on this floor, this will not 
stop every death. But it will stop some, and it is certainly worth 
pursuing.
  I urge your ``aye'' vote.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, is this now the final speaker?
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close as well.
  Mr. Chair, before I close, I would like to say that I agree with the 
statement from the gentleman just now that there are maybe the ones 
turned away every day. The problem is there are only 60 a year 
prosecuted for what is a crime. This doesn't address that.
  Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Budd), a licensed firearms dealer.
  Mr. BUDD. Mr. Chair, I thank my friend from Georgia (Mr. Collins) for 
allowing me the time.
  I rise today in opposition to H.R. 8 and want to lay out a couple of 
reasons for my opposition.
  Before I do, I think it is important to acknowledge how polarizing 
this debate has become over the last several years. More specifically, 
I want this body to know that, as a human being, as an American, as a 
father, when I see the heartbreaking news of a mass shooting like the 
one we saw just 54 weeks ago in Parkland, it just breaks my heart.
  With that being said, this bill that we are voting on today would not 
have done anything to stop that tragedy from happening, nor would it 
have prevented any of those recent mass shootings.
  The 19-year-old murderer in Parkland passed a background check.
  The man who murdered 26 innocent people at First Baptist Church in 
Sutherland Springs also passed a background check, although he wouldn't 
have if the Air Force had passed along his criminal information like 
they were supposed to have done.
  And the evil that took place in Sandy Hook wouldn't have been stopped 
by this bill either. The killer used his mother's guns to kill her and 
26 others. They were bought legally.
  Mr. Chairman, the simple fact is that criminals don't abide by the 
law, and this would only create traps for law-abiding gun owners.
  However, there are actions that we can take, actions that we can do, 
that would make meaningful strides in combating the violence that we 
see today.
  One example of something we could do, improve information sharing 
between law enforcement officials across this country.
  Mr. Chair, to close, I disagree with the policy of this bill.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chair, we have heard the other side here say that some people lie 
on the forms; they are not prosecuted. Well, that may be, and maybe law 
enforcement ought to prosecute more people.
  That doesn't negate the necessity for the bill. It doesn't negate the 
fact that too many people who shouldn't have guns, who are mentally 
unstable, who have committed crimes, and who are abusers get guns 
because they buy a gun at a gun show or not from a registered gun 
dealer and, therefore, do not have to undergo a background check.

  Everyone who gets a gun should have to undergo a background check, 
with the few exceptions we put in the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 8 is legislation that is long overdue for passage 
by this body and for enactment so that we can take a critical step 
overwhelmingly supported by the American people to protect us from gun 
violence.
  We have had too many moments of silence, too many expressions of 
sympathy, too many deaths--39,000 deaths from guns last year--but 
little action here in Congress on this issue.
  Today we act. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this vital 
bill to start taking back our streets from the killers, to start 
blocking people who shouldn't have them from having guns.
  Save our lives.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chair, when I voted for the Brady Law in 
1993--which took effect on February 28, 1994--it was to keep firearms 
out of the hands of dangerous persons including felons and abusers.
  Twenty-five years later--and 300 million background checks that have 
blocked 3 million purchases to dangerous individuals--few if any today 
seriously suggest that the Brady law should be repealed.
  I support the Second Amendment. Universal background checks 
prescribed in H.R. 8 are an attempt to ensure that firearms are 
procured, owned and used by responsible, law abiding citizens.
  According to the Brady Campaign, about 1 in 5 guns now sold in 
America are done so without a background check. That's a significant 
loophole.
  According to the CDC, there was a record 39,773 deaths from firearms 
in 2017--higher than in any other year--23,854 were self-inflicted and 
14,542 were homicides.
  To mitigate gun violence in America, H.R. 8 expands Brady background 
checks to transactions by private sellers not currently covered by the 
law.
  Multiple school shootings have led to robust, comprehensive action at 
every level to make classrooms safer. I have visited many schools in my 
district--and I have found that while the threat is being taken 
seriously, no one policy, program or initiative can ensure the level of 
protection our students need and deserve.
  Mr. Chair, no constitutional right is absolute including the Second 
Amendment. The First Amendment's freedom of speech, for example, has 
reasonable limits including the promulgation of slander and libel law.
  To preserve public order, we accept reasonable restrictions on the 
freedom to assemble. Even freedom of religion isn't without some modest 
boundaries.
  In like manner, universal background checks don't erode Second 
Amendment rights but do help ensure much needed protection from gun 
violence for everyone.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 8, 
the Bipartisan Background Checks Act.
  This year, my State of the Union guest was Alexandria Goddard, a 
young activist who helped organize Portland's March for Our Lives.
  Alexandria led thousands of Oregonians in a march to demand that 
Congress take action to prevent gun violence.
  By passing this bill we are heeding the call of the hundreds of 
thousands of students who marched for their lives.
  They know--and we know--that this bill will save lives because it 
requires a background check for nearly all firearm sales and transfers.
  The evidence shows that Oregon and the other states that have already 
passed comprehensive background checks have 35 percent fewer gun 
deaths, and 47 percent fewer women shot by their intimate partners.
  Congress is finally doing more than offering thoughts and prayers.
  We are acting. We are acting for Parkland, for Sandy Hook, for Umpqua 
Community College, and for the hundreds of thousands of victims and 
survivors around the country.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote yes on H.R. 8.
  Ms. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise today to voice my support for 
H.R. 8, The Bipartisan Background Check Act of 2019. This

[[Page H2254]]

common sense bipartisan legislation would expand the current firearm 
background check system to cover all commercial firearm sales 
nationwide.
  Our nation is currently enduring a crisis that is putting families 
and communities at risk. Gun violence has become so commonplace in our 
society that we no longer seem to flinch whenever these events occur. 
Gun violence threatens national security and inflicts a toll. 125,000 
people are shot every year and more than 36,000 people die as a result 
of these shootings. A 2018 report conducted by the Centers for Disease 
Control & Prevention revealed that there were 3,353 firearm-related 
deaths in my home state of Texas. 352 of these were children and 
teenagers under 19 years old. Texas unfortunately has played host to 
some of the most viscous recent mass shootings, such as the 2009 Fort 
Hood shooting, the Dallas police officer shooting in 2016, the Plano 
and Sutherland Springs Church shootings in 2017, and last year's Santa 
Fe High School shooting.
  We have high levels of gun violence in this country because we have 
weak laws that are riddled with loopholes. This bill will not only 
eliminate those loopholes, but it will do so without infringing upon 
second amendment rights. Implementing universal background checks is 
supported by 97 percent of Americans, including 97 percent of gun 
owners.
  The reality is that gun safety laws will reduce violence and we must 
do everything in our power to prevent the reoccurrence of unnecessary 
tragedy and loss of life in this country. I urge my colleagues to 
support this bill.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
the Committee on the Judiciary, printed in the bill, it shall be in 
order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
under the 5-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.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                                 H.R. 8

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Bipartisan Background Checks 
     Act of 2019''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this Act is to utilize the current 
     background checks process in the United States to ensure 
     individuals prohibited from gun possession are not able to 
     obtain firearms.

     SEC. 3. FIREARMS TRANSFERS.

       Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (s);
       (2) by redesignating subsection (t) as subsection (s); and
       (3) by inserting after subsection (s), as redesignated, the 
     following:
       ``(t)(1)(A) It shall be unlawful for any person who is not 
     a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed 
     dealer to transfer a firearm to any other person who is not 
     so licensed, unless a licensed importer, licensed 
     manufacturer, or licensed dealer has first taken possession 
     of the firearm for the purpose of complying with subsection 
     (s).
       ``(B) Upon taking possession of a firearm under 
     subparagraph (A), a licensee shall comply with all 
     requirements of this chapter as if the licensee were 
     transferring the firearm from the inventory of the licensee 
     to the unlicensed transferee.
       ``(C) If a transfer of a firearm described in subparagraph 
     (A) will not be completed for any reason after a licensee 
     takes possession of the firearm (including because the 
     transfer of the firearm to, or receipt of the firearm by, the 
     transferee would violate this chapter), the return of the 
     firearm to the transferor by the licensee shall not 
     constitute the transfer of a firearm for purposes of this 
     chapter.
       ``(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
       ``(A) a law enforcement agency or any law enforcement 
     officer, armed private security professional, or member of 
     the armed forces, to the extent the officer, professional, or 
     member is acting within the course and scope of employment 
     and official duties;
       ``(B) a transfer that is a loan or bona fide gift between 
     spouses, between domestic partners, between parents and their 
     children, between siblings, between aunts or uncles and their 
     nieces or nephews, or between grandparents and their 
     grandchildren;
       ``(C) a transfer to an executor, administrator, trustee, or 
     personal representative of an estate or a trust that occurs 
     by operation of law upon the death of another person;
       ``(D) 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 imminent death or great bodily harm;
       ``(E) a transfer that is approved by the Attorney General 
     under section 5812 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or
       ``(F) a temporary transfer if the transferor has no reason 
     to believe that the transferee will use or intends to use the 
     firearm in a crime or is prohibited from possessing firearms 
     under State or Federal law, and the transfer takes place and 
     the transferee's possession of the firearm is exclusively--
       ``(i) at a shooting range or in a shooting gallery or other 
     area designated for the purpose of target shooting;
       ``(ii) while reasonably necessary for the purposes of 
     hunting, trapping, or fishing, if the transferor--
       ``(I) has no reason to believe that the transferee intends 
     to use the firearm in a place where it is illegal; and
       ``(II) has reason to believe that the transferee will 
     comply with all licensing and permit requirements for such 
     hunting, trapping, or fishing; or
       ``(iii) while in the presence of the transferor.
       ``(3)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     chapter, the Attorney General may implement this subsection 
     with regulations.
       ``(B) Regulations promulgated under this paragraph may not 
     include any provision requiring licensees to facilitate 
     transfers in accordance with paragraph (1).
       ``(C) Regulations promulgated under this paragraph may not 
     include any provision requiring persons not licensed under 
     this chapter to keep records of background checks or firearms 
     transfers.
       ``(D) Regulations promulgated under this paragraph may not 
     include any provision placing a cap on the fee licensees may 
     charge to facilitate transfers in accordance with paragraph 
     (1).
       ``(4) It shall be unlawful for a licensed importer, 
     licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer to transfer 
     possession of, or title to, a firearm to another person who 
     is not so licensed unless the importer, manufacturer, or 
     dealer has provided such other person with a notice of the 
     prohibition under paragraph (1), and such other person has 
     certified that such other person has been provided with this 
     notice on a form prescribed by the Attorney General.''.

     SEC. 4. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Section 922.--Section 922(y)(2) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended in the matter preceding subparagraph 
     (A) by striking ``, (g)(5)(B), and (s)(3)(B)(v)(II)'' and 
     inserting ``and (g)(5)(B)''.
       (b) Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 
     2012.--Section 511 of title V of division B of the 
     Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012 
     (18 U.S.C. 922 note) is amended by striking ``subsection 
     922(t)'' each place it appears and inserting ``subsection (s) 
     or (t) of section 922''.

     SEC. 5. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

       Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, 
     shall be construed to--
       (1) authorize the establishment, directly or indirectly, of 
     a national firearms registry; or
       (2) interfere with the authority of a State, under section 
     927 of title 18, United States Code, to enact a law on the 
     same subject matter as this Act.

     SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act shall take effect 210 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.

  The CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part A of House 
Report 116-14. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order 
printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
considered 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.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mrs. Lesko

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
part A of House Report 116-14.
  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment 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 participant in the Pre-Check or 
     successor trusted traveler program of the Department of 
     Homeland Security.''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 145, the gentlewoman from 
Arizona (Mrs. Lesko) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Arizona.
  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would allow gun owners to 
legally transfer their firearms to individuals who have been approved 
and are participants in TSA's PreCheck program.
  TSA PreCheck identifies trusted travelers and, thus, allows expedited 
movement through airport security. In order to receive TSA PreCheck, 
one must submit an application, have an in-person interview, and go 
through a background check and fingerprinting.

[[Page H2255]]

  Fingerprinting is not required, currently, to purchase a gun; thus, a 
TSA PreCheck background check is more stringent. If an individual can 
pass this background check and be admitted to this Federal Government 
program, there is no reason why they shouldn't be able to borrow a 
firearm from a friend. They have already gone through a more extensive 
background check system than to acquire a weapon. The current 
background check does not require fingerprints; a TSA PreCheck does.
  Membership to TSA PreCheck must be renewed every 5 years. Again, the 
TSA PreCheck process requires fingerprints and an in-person interview. 
The process, currently, for purchasing a gun requires neither of those 
under Federal law. It appears, then, that the TSA PreCheck process is a 
more extensive process.
  H.R. 8 restricts not only the purchase, but also the everyday gun 
transfer for law-abiding citizens. This amendment and many other 
Republican amendments--I think I had five others that were not made in 
order--seek to give some relief to law-abiding citizens from this 
overarching and burdensome legislation.
  In H.R. 8, we are not only talking about the purchase of firearms, we 
are talking about the transfer of firearms, which includes lending your 
firearm. The Democrats have proposed a bill that would criminalize 
millions of law-abiding Americans. Because this bill uses ambiguous, 
overarching, and vague language, it encompasses so many potential 
situations. This amendment seeks to give some relief.
  If we are going to allow Americans to be given expedited and reduced 
screening in our most sensitive and secure environments in the U.S. 
airport getting on a plane, why wouldn't we allow them to lend a gun to 
their friend?
  H.R. 8 criminalizes me and others just for handing someone a firearm 
who isn't a direct family member or in other very narrow situations. In 
fact, as I said yesterday, the language in this bill is so ambiguous. 
What is ``imminent danger''? There is no definition in the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment because 
it is fatally flawed and would undermine the public safety impact of 
the bill.
  The amendment would add an exception to the background check 
requirement for anyone who is a participant in the TSA PreCheck program 
by the Department of Homeland Security.
  By exempting those who have obtained a TSA PreCheck from the 
background check requirement, the amendment would allow many dangerous 
people, including people with disqualifying mental health conditions 
and some criminal convictions, to obtain firearms without a background 
check.
  The current background system, the National Instant Criminal 
Background Check System, was designed specifically for background 
checks pursuant to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.
  The system, often called the NICS, contains the information that no 
other Federal database contains, and the TSA does not check NICS when 
determining a person's eligibility for the TSA PreCheck program.
  Although participants in the TSA PreCheck program have had their 
criminal backgrounds vetted, the standards for approval and 
participation in the TSA PreCheck program are not the same and, in many 
cases, are more lenient than those which prohibit firearm possession 
and purchase.
  For example, the NICS searches the records of people prohibited for 
mental health reasons during a firearms background check. These mental 
health reasons, though, are not part of the TSA PreCheck search.
  As of January 31, there are more than 5.7 million of these mental 
health records in the NICS indexes, making it the second most populous 
category of prohibited records for firearm purchase.
  Because the Department of Homeland Security does not have access to 
these mental health records for TSA PreCheck program purposes, 
individuals who have been adjudicated to be disqualified to own 
firearms for reasons of mental condition or have been committed to any 
mental institution may be accepted under the TSA PreCheck program but 
are not legally able to possess a gun. Under this amendment, they would 
be legally exempted from the background check requirement and would be 
able to get a gun, despite being legally prohibited from doing so.
  The TSA bars people convicted of certain criminal offenses, such as 
rape or aggravated sexual abuse, from participating in the TSA PreCheck 
program only temporarily. It doesn't restrict people convicted of these 
serious crimes for more than 7 years, and it wouldn't bar people 
released from prison for these crimes within the last 5 years.
  Under current law, these felony convictions prohibit possession or 
purchase of a weapon, but, under this amendment, people released from 
prison within the last 5 years for these crimes could get the weapons--
could get the weapons.
  The TSA PreCheck program does not have a minimum age requirement, and 
this amendment would allow people under the ages of 18 and 21 to 
purchase firearms illegally and without a NICS background check.
  Furthermore, the TSA PreCheck program only requires a background 
check every 5 years, and the PreCheck system may not be advised that a 
firearms disqualifying offense has taken place after the initial 
PreCheck background check has occurred.
  In other words, you get the TSA PreCheck, and if you are convicted 
afterwards, within 5 years, for a very serious crime, under this 
amendment, you could get the gun, although, legally, you shouldn't 
without a background check, and the TSA PreCheck program would not have 
picked it up.

                              {time}  1400

  These shortcomings of the TSA PreCheck system make it an inadequate 
and dangerous substitute for a NICS background check. To prevent 
potentially prohibited purchasers from obtaining firearms, licensed 
dealers should conduct background checks on participants in the 
PreCheck program as they would with any other member of the public.
  The blanket exception of this amendment for anyone who participates 
in the TSA PreCheck program would undermine the bill's ability to 
enhance public safety because it would enable people convicted of 
serious crimes, people adjudicated to have serious mental illnesses, to 
purchase guns without a background check, even though the TSA system 
would not pick them up.
  The TSA system is not a substitute for the background check system. 
It doesn't pick up many of the crimes. It doesn't carry it forward. And 
it is not a substitute for this system.
  To pass this amendment, which would allow people who have qualified 
under the TSA PreCheck program not to have background checks, would 
allow a lot of people who shouldn't have guns to have them. Therefore, 
I strongly oppose this amendment, and I ask that my colleagues vote 
``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Collins).
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I won't take even the 30 
seconds. I just support the amendment. I think it is good. Many of the 
flaws that we have seen in this bill so far, this is an amendment that 
actually works.
  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Nadler, in his statement, said that my amendment would allow 
dangerous people to get guns. I have to say I disagree.
  I am the ranking member on the Committee on Homeland Security 
subcommittee that deals with TSA, and the TSA PreCheck system is more 
stringent than the background check currently required to obtain a gun, 
when you purchase it. Again, it requires a fingerprint background check 
and an individual interview. Neither of those are required right now.
  We had offered a number of amendments to help this bill become less 
burdensome on law-abiding citizens, and so I am happy that one was at 
least ruled in order, this TSA one, and I would ask my colleagues to 
please vote ``yes'' on it.

[[Page H2256]]

  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this commonsense amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Price of North Carolina). The question is on 
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Arizona 
will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Dean

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in part A of House Report 116-14.
  Ms. DEAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

         Page 3, line 11, after ``harm,'' insert ``including harm 
     to self, family, household members, or others,''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 145, the gentlewoman 
from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania.
  Ms. DEAN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background 
Checks Act of 2019. My amendment clarifies that those at risk of 
committing suicide would be exempt from the background check 
requirement in instances of imminent threats of death or great bodily 
harm.
  Specifically, this legislation amends the bill to insert the line 
``including harm to self, family, household members, or others'' to the 
list of instances when a person is exempt from the background check 
requirement and may temporarily transfer away a firearm for 
safekeeping.
  The spirit of this long overdue legislation is to save lives, and I 
urge my colleagues to support my amendment, which will further achieve 
this goal by addressing the leading instance of gun death in this 
country, suicide.
  Last year, nearly 40,000 people were killed by gun violence, with 
another 80,000 literally caught in the crossfire. Of those killed, over 
half, more than 20,000, people tragically died by gun suicide.
  And the problem has grown. Nationally, over the past years, the past 
decade, the rate of suicide by gun death has increased 19 percent. This 
is a problem that grips our entire Nation.
  In my home State of Pennsylvania, there has been a 24 percent 
increase in gun suicides over the past 10 years, claiming the lives of 
over 14,000 people. These are our friends, our loved ones, young and 
old, people for whom our hearts ache, people we wish we could hold just 
one more time.
  I offer up a picture of a dear friend of my family, Ron.
  Unfortunately, very few of us are left unscathed by this problem. 
While there are many factors that contribute to self-harm, the presence 
of a firearm in the home increases the risk of suicide. Not 
surprisingly, using a gun is the method that most often ends in death.
  Guns are dangerously effective at what they are designed to do. That 
is why this amendment is so important. It ensures that those in crisis 
can temporarily transfer a firearm safely until the crisis has passed. 
It clearly defines that a person can temporarily hand over firearms to 
someone they trust while they work through this difficult time.
  This clarity is needed because, in times of crisis, moments matter. 
It may literally be the difference between life and death.
  We are here today at a historic moment to take action against the 
violence that plagues this country, our communities, and our loved 
ones. The Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, with this 
amendment, will keep guns out of the hands of those who legally should 
not have them and also gives those who need a safe way to separate 
themselves from their guns a way to do so.
  If we have the courage to pass this legislation, the courage here in 
the House and in the Senate and in the White House, it will do just 
that. It will save lives.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the willingness of 
the amendment, I think, but I rise in that, again, this is something 
discussed at committee. It was an attempt to--it is basically a failed 
attempt to fix one of the shortcomings of this legislation.
  I understand why they would bring it. I understand why they would 
want to fix it, because its existence indicates what we have been 
saying about the flaws in the bill, which we discussed at committee.
  Like other floor amendments that are going to be offered, this is 
nothing more than trying to basically change the appearance of what is 
a flawed perception. The problem here is it addresses the undefined 
term of ``imminent'' used in the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, it is well known, and I have spoken about it many 
times, that I am still currently serving as a United States Air Force 
chaplain. I have pastored for many years, and I have been on the other 
end of phone calls from those who were struggling and thinking of 
taking their life.
  Suicide is not something that we can define very easily. It is not 
something that we can simply limit to: Yes, guns are effective. But any 
method that someone uses to choose to end their life is sad and a 
struggle for those of us who have dealt with this.
  The term ``imminent'' here is problematic for those of us who have 
dealt with those who are struggling with suicide because imminent to 
them and imminent to a judge and imminent to someone who wants to take 
his life, and to law enforcement, indicates something precipitous that 
will happen in a very short amount of time, a very imminent act, 
something that is maybe going to happen, Mr. Chairman, even before I 
finish my speech. That is an imminent kind of act.
  Imminent does not extend to 12 hours or 24 hours or even 46 hours. 
That would not fall under the definition of ``imminent.'' And I am not 
willing to let a prosecutor or a judge who may not like guns, who would 
actually say that was an imminent threat, and by transferring it for 
more than a short amount of time, you have then fallen under and fall 
under this.
  Now, I would hope that would never happen, Mr. Chairman. But we have 
to be serious about this issue of imminence. For those of us who have 
dealt with this, there may be, and I have had times when people would 
come to me and they were thinking about harming themselves, but the 
imminence factor was not there. They were just trying to see if they 
could clear their head. It may be a week that would pass, and they came 
back and would say it was fine.
  But in this issue, I understand the intent and the heart here, but it 
is a very weak attempt to fix problems that we had already pointed out 
in this bill. And it will still not fix the problem, because the 
problem is the imminent standard. That is the part that we are 
struggling with.
  We can disagree about this, and I will respect the gentlewoman if she 
disagrees, and would expect her to. But let's remember, this is carried 
out, if, say--which I would hope would not happen--this bill actually 
becomes law. It then will present a problem for those who have to 
enforce it and those judges who would have to interpret it.
  We have to remember that our actions here, we vote on words on paper, 
not aspirational ideas. Those are happy thoughts, not words on paper. 
The only thing that the courts can do is vote on words on paper.
  I appreciate the gentlewoman bringing this. I support the intent, 
especially dealing with suicide, which many of us have worked on, and 
the tragedy that it leaves in the wake of so many. But please 
understand my opposition to this is it is still a flawed product 
because we have not dealt with the very issue of imminence in this 
legislation and this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. DEAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler).

[[Page H2257]]

  

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment, which clarifies 
the bill's exemption for the background check requirement in instances 
of imminent threats or great bodily harm would apply to someone who is 
at risk of committing suicide.
  The amendment makes clear that the limited number of exemptions to 
the background check requirement include circumstances in which someone 
feels that they are a danger to themselves. They may temporarily 
transfer a firearm until the danger has passed. This is a limited and 
reasonable exemption that only applies to those who fear they will harm 
themselves, so that they may temporary surrender their weapon.
  I listened to the gentleman from Georgia, and I appreciate he doesn't 
think that the amendment goes far enough or solves the underlying 
problems of the bill, as he sees it. But even from his point of view, 
it should go in the right direction. So I urge everyone to support this 
amendment.
  Ms. DEAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the author of this bill, Representative 
Thompson, and I thank all the tireless advocates who have worked to 
bring us to this day.
  I thank the good gentleman from Georgia for his comments. Clearly, he 
understands the gravity and the grave nature of gun death by suicide in 
this country. As you can see, that number has been escalating over the 
past 10 years. That includes more than 20,000 people in a single year.
  Gun violence by suicide is quite deadly. We know it, and so I thank 
my colleague from the other side of the aisle for at least supporting 
the spirit of what we are trying to do here.
  For the greater safety of our citizens, our neighbors, our friends, 
and our family members, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment 
and please support this bill, H.R. 8.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean).
  The amendment was agreed to.


       Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Kendra S. Horn of Oklahoma

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in part A of House Report 116-14.
  Ms. KENDRA S. HORN of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at 
the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 3, line 14, insert ``, including the harm of domestic 
     violence, dating partner violence, sexual assault, stalking, 
     and domestic abuse'' before the semicolon.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 145, the gentlewoman 
from Oklahoma (Ms. Kendra S. Horn) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Oklahoma.
  Ms. KENDRA S. HORN of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  H.R. 8 is a critical piece of legislation that I am proud to support. 
Congress needs to act to cut down on our Nation's widespread gun 
violence. We must close loopholes that give buyers and sellers a way 
around background checks. There is no reason vendors at gun shows or 
online should be exempt from the safety measures other merchants must 
obey. We should also vet sales between two people.
  That is not to say that there should be no exceptions. My amendment 
carves out protections for people who face risk of domestic violence, 
dating partner violence, sexual assault, stalking, and domestic abuse.
  The underlying bill, H.R. 8, already creates an exception to the 
background check requirement when there is a temporary weapon transfer, 
if the transferee is at imminent risk of death or great bodily harm. 
Our amendment is meant to make it crystal clear and explicit that this 
exception applies when the transferees are protecting themselves from 
an abuser. It does not expand the underlying exception; it offers one 
critical example of where it might apply.

                              {time}  1415

  When I talked to Oklahomans across my district last year, they 
confided in me their concerns about gun violence. I promised to work 
towards policies that would protect them.
  We need to protect our Second Amendment right, but there is no 
credible reason why we as a state and nation can't acknowledge there 
are steps we can take to save lives and find a path forward to do so.
  H.R. 8 does just that. It increases safety without limiting our 
Second Amendment rights by implementing commonsense policy.
  But when we take these commonsense steps, we need to acknowledge our 
power to create unintended consequences, and to prevent them.
  That is why I am offering this amendment. In addition to my 
commitment to gun safety, I have talked about my devotion to helping 
protect women and families.
  Between 1998 and 2017, the Oklahoma Domestic Violence Fatality Review 
Board found nearly 1,700 people were killed in our State because of 
domestic violence. In 2017 alone, 91 Oklahomans were murdered.
  The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey found that 
nearly two in five Oklahoma women will face some form of domestic abuse 
or sexual violence during their lifetimes.
  Oklahoma is consistently ranked in the top five States for women 
killed by men in one-on-one homicides.
  Oklahoma domestic violence programs serve an average of 18,000 people 
annually, according to the YWCA.
  Oklahoma is not an exception. These problems persist. One in four 
women and one in nine men experience intimate partner physical 
violence; these people deserve to be protected.
  For us, that means many things, including strengthening and 
reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act and investing in support 
services and family justice centers. But it also means we need to 
empower people to protect themselves.
  That is why Congress should pass laws to strengthen background checks 
and create exceptions for those who truly need them.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition 
to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, again, I understand the need or 
want to do this is to make many things that actually came in 
discussions in our committee about some of the problems that we found 
here, and the mere submission is another tacit admission that the 
Democrats understand the flaws in this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, it is not something that I am going to relitigate here, 
but also, when debate is cut short, this is what happens when you get 
to the floor. When debate is cut short in committee, this is what 
happens.
  They realize that good products were brought up, but yet they chose 
to push through a bill because they had a timeline.
  We went through this in the Rules Committee. I get it. This is what 
is coming up. But, again, to put this in, ``great bodily harm,'' it is 
minimally helpful at this point. It goes back to the problem we had 
with ``imminent'' in the last one.
  These are all things, frankly, that could have been--even in a bill 
that I would disagree with at the end of the day on this--this is, 
again, not something that is going to fix it. A victim of domestic 
abuse can live in constant fear of her abuser and feel threatened at 
all times.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, I understand at least the attempt to fix 
something, because they understand that there were problems and they 
don't want to make it worse, but I have advocated all along that what 
this does help, it also hurts. And this is, again, just another attempt 
to do that.
  I appreciate that they are figuring out the problems now; I just 
would oppose this amendment, because, again, it does not completely fix 
the problems that we have seen, and would not in the bigger picture.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. KENDRA S. HORN of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as 
she

[[Page H2258]]

may consume to the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Davids).
  Ms. DAVIDS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my support 
for this amendment to H.R. 8 introduced by Representatives Horn and 
Murphy.
  This amendment protects people facing the threat of domestic 
violence, dating partner violence, sexual assault, stalking, and 
domestic abuse.
  I am the daughter of a military veteran, and like most Kansans, I 
respect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. But also, 
like most Kansans, I am tired of politicians doing nothing to stop 
senseless killings.
  That is why I support commonsense solutions to keep our communities 
safe, like expanding background checks and closing dangerous loopholes 
in our laws.
  In our effort to ensure the safety of our communities, however, we 
can't forget the needs of those at risk of domestic violence to protect 
themselves from abuse.
  According to the Kansas Bureau of Investigation, in 2017 a domestic 
violence incident was reported every 23 minutes and a domestic violence 
murder occurred every 9 days in the State of Kansas.
  In the United States, more than 12 million people experience some 
form of domestic violence by a current or former domestic partner every 
year.
  These women and men deserve our support, which means we also need to 
reauthorize and strengthen the Violence Against Women Act.
  These men and women deserve to be protected. I cannot emphasize that 
enough.
  Mr. Chair, I am proud to support H.R. 8. It is a critical piece of 
legislation that will save lives, and I urge my fellow colleagues to 
stand up for survivors and those at risk and support this amendment.
  Ms. KENDRA S. HORN of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Chair, I simply want to say I support this amendment, which 
clarifies that great bodily harm is included in the exception to the 
bill's background check requirement, includes domestic violence, sexual 
assaults, stalking, et cetera. It is a good amendment. I urge people to 
support it.
  Ms. KENDRA S. HORN of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I would like to simply 
close by reiterating the importance of H.R. 8 and my support for it in 
this amendment, and clarifying and protecting individuals who are at 
risk from domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault.
  Mr. Chair, I would like to thank Congresswoman Stephanie Murphy, who 
cosponsored this amendment, as well as Congresswoman Davids and 
Congressman Nadler for their remarks.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Ms. Kendra S. Horn).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Oklahoma 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Van Drew

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in part A of House Report 116-14.
  Mr. VAN DREW. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 3, line 3, after ``children,'' insert ``including 
     step-parents and their step-children''.
       Page 3, line 5, insert ``, if the transferor has no reason 
     to believe that the transferee will use or intends to use the 
     firearm in a crime or is prohibited from possessing firearms 
     under State or Federal law'' before the semicolon.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 145, the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Van Drew) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. VAN DREW. Mr. Chair, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chair, my amendment clarifies that the exceptions for gifts and 
loans of firearms between parents and their children applies to 
stepparents and stepchildren.
  The reason I offer this amendment is to recognize that the 
relationship between stepparents and stepchildren is sometimes stronger 
than or as strong as that of the biological parent-child relationship.
  The parents of one of my closest friends are technically stepparents, 
but you would never know it, because they are all so close and love 
each other so much.
  The amendment also clarifies that gifts and loans of firearms among 
family members are still subject to the existing legal standard for all 
transfers.
  Existing law states that no person may deliver a firearm to someone 
if he or she has a reason to believe that the person is prohibited from 
possessing a firearm.
  Consequently, even gifts and loans among family members are not 
permissible if the transferor has a reason to believe that the 
transferee may use the firearm in a crime or is prohibited from 
possessing firearms.
  Again, the amendment clarifies that while a background check is not 
required for these transfers, the existing legal standard continues to 
apply.
  Mr. Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition 
to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, again, I am not opposing this 
amendment, but like the previous amendment, again, it is proof that 
this bill is still not ready for prime time and should have spent more 
time instead of moving a very ill-timed previous question because of a 
timing deadline that they had to get to the floor. It fixes one of the 
many flaws in the bill.
  Again, Republicans had solutions to these loose ends all over the 
bill, but our debate time was stopped. But I do have just a question 
here. Although I am not opposing this amendment, it merely adds the 
exchange between stepparent and their stepchildren.
  What about stepsiblings who also love each other dearly? But this 
doesn't include that. Stepgrandparents and stepgrandchildren? What 
about foster families or adoptive families?
  It is a simple fix that, again, goes forward and, again, struggles.
  But I do want to go back and address something, Mr. Chairman, that 
came up earlier, and it seemed to get an interesting response from my 
friends across the aisle, my colleague stated that the appropriate fine 
is $1,000, not $100,000. They cite the U.S. sentencing guidelines for 
this number, but I do have to remind the chairman that since the Booker 
decision, of course, the guidelines are only advisory. And we need not 
look to the advisory guidelines, but look at the statute the bill 
amends.
  Remember, we do not vote on aspirations in this Chamber; we vote on 
words on paper.
  18 USC 924(a)(5) contains the penalty for violating part ``(s) or (t) 
of section 922 shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not more 
than 1 year, or both.''
  18 USC 3571(b)(5) ``for a Class A misdemeanor'', which this is, 
``that does not result in death, not more than $100,000.''
  So it could be $1,000 or it could be up to $100,000.
  I appreciate our confusion over this issue, but unfortunately, as I 
stated before, this is what happens when a bill is rushed to the floor, 
and it is why we oppose this legislation.
  When we understand this, Mr. Chairman, again, you can offer 
amendments that make Members feel good, but feeling good doesn't heal 
you and feeling good will not make this better.
  I will not oppose this amendment, but, again, I think in just the 
moments that I have had here, I raised enough questions about this 
amendment to

[[Page H2259]]

take up those very issues that were spoken of about the love between 
stepparents and stepchildren. What about the stepsiblings? What about 
the stepgrandparents? That is still part of that device and not 
addressed in this.
  And, again, going back to the issue of the fine: again, the statute 
and the bill itself are pretty clear; it is fined under this process 
and not the guidelines that are sentencing.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN DREW. Mr. Chair, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chair, I want to thank the body for its support of my amendment, 
and I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Van Drew amendment.
  This is a good amendment, and I believe it will be helpful, and I 
believe it creates an atmosphere which is a fair atmosphere for 
everyone to increase safety and yet at the same time to understand the 
relationships that do exist in stepfamilies.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I yield myself as much time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, again, I appreciate the gentleman bringing it, but as 
was said, this is an attempt to make a bill that should have been 
vetted more in committee not be vetted more. And I appreciate that.
  I am not going to oppose the amendment, but when I take it a step 
further, what about the stepparents and the stepsiblings between each 
other, and the stepgrandparents and stepgrandchildren? I have had a 
wonderful look at those families. Those are precious families. Why are 
we just stopping at one?
  Again, it goes back to the heart. And I understand the rush to get 
here, but, again, what makes you feel better and makes you feel good 
does not always heal you. This is something that needs to be addressed.
  Mr. Chair, with this, I am not going to oppose this amendment. It is 
unfortunately very lacking in a bill that is lacking on many points, 
but with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Van Drew).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments printed in part A of House Report 
116-14 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following 
order:
  Amendment No. 1 by Mrs. Lesko of Arizona.
  Amendment No. 3 by Ms. Kendra S. Horn of Oklahoma.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any 
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mrs. Lesko

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Arizona 
(Mrs. Lesko) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 182, 
noes 250, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 96]

                               AYES--182

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

                               NOES--250

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Amash
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cline
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fitzpatrick
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallagher
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Hollingsworth
     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
     King (NY)
     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
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Massie
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     Norton
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Plaskett
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roy
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Rutherford
     Ryan
     Sablan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Stivers
     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

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Frankel
     Gosar
     Katko
     Radewagen
     San Nicolas

                              {time}  1458

  Mr. RUSH, Ms. PLASKETT, Mr. PETERS, Mses. PRESSLEY, SCANLON, Messrs. 
KENNEDY, HECK, O'HALLERAN, Miss RICE of New York, Messrs. PETERSON, 
GALLAGHER, CLINE, Ms. TLAIB, Mr. SUOZZI, Mrs. BEATTY, Ms. HERRERA 
BEUTLER, Messrs. PERRY and LEWIS changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Messrs. SPANO, GOHMERT, Miss GONZALEZ-COLON of Puerto Rico, Messrs. 
KINZINGER and BUCK changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

[[Page H2260]]

  



       Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Kendra S. Horn of Oklahoma

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Oklahoma 
(Ms. Kendra S. Horn) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 310, 
noes 119, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 97]

                               AYES--310

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Arrington
     Axne
     Bacon
     Balderson
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bost
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cloud
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Cook
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crenshaw
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Davis, Rodney
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duncan
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fitzpatrick
     Fletcher
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gaetz
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (TX)
     Gianforte
     Gohmert
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gonzalez-Colon (PR)
     Gottheimer
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Green (TX)
     Griffith
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hartzler
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (AR)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Hudson
     Huffman
     Huizenga
     Hurd (TX)
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Joyce (OH)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Lesko
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Mast
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meadows
     Meeks
     Meng
     Miller
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Newhouse
     Norcross
     Norman
     Norton
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Plaskett
     Pocan
     Porter
     Posey
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Reed
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Riggleman
     Roe, David P.
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sablan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Schweikert
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Shimkus
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Smucker
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Stanton
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Stevens
     Stivers
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tipton
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walden
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Webster (FL)
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yarmuth
     Young
     Zeldin

                               NOES--119

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Babin
     Baird
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bishop (UT)
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Buck
     Budd
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cheney
     Cline
     Collins (GA)
     Comer
     Crawford
     Curtis
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gallagher
     Gibbs
     Gooden
     Granger
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hern, Kevin
     Higgins (LA)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hunter
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (PA)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     Meuser
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Ratcliffe
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Spano
     Speier
     Steube
     Stewart
     Taylor
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Underwood
     Walberg
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Yoho

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Castro (TX)
     Frankel
     Garcia (IL)
     Gosar
     Grijalva
     Katko
     Radewagen
     San Nicolas

                              {time}  1509

  Mr. CHABOT changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Ms. 
Kelly of Illinois) having assumed the chair, Mr. Price of North 
Carolina, Acting Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state 
of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under 
consideration the bill (H.R. 8) to require a background check for every 
firearm sale, and, pursuant to House Resolution 145, he reported the 
bill back to the House with an amendment adopted in the Committee of 
the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment 
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
  If not, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at 
the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I am.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I reserve a point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
  The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Collins of Georgia moves to recommit the bill H.R. 8 to 
     the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report 
     the same to the House forthwith with the following amendment:
       Page 5, after line 4, insert the following:
       ``(E) Regulations promulgated under this paragraph shall 
     include, in the case of a background check conducted by the 
     national instant criminal background check system in response 
     to a contact from a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, 
     or licensed dealer, which background check indicates that the 
     receipt of a firearm by a person would violate subsection 
     (g)(5), a requirement that the system notify U.S. Immigration 
     and Customs Enforcement.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, this motion to recommit will 
not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill 
will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.
  As was just read, the motion to recommit will notify U.S. Immigration 
and Customs Enforcement, commonly known as ICE, when an illegal alien 
who is prohibited from possessing a firearm attempts to purchase a 
firearm by going through the process of application.

[[Page H2261]]

  Madam Speaker, I have been here all afternoon, and we have heard time 
and time again how we have had the problem of mass violence. We have 
talked about how to solve it, and, unfortunately, this underlying bill, 
as I have brought out many times already, will not do this. We have 
heard that we have to do something basically even if it won't work.
  Madam Speaker, I will remind this House one more time that what makes 
you feel good does not always heal you. When we understand that, then 
we can begin to move forward.
  What we have found this day is that this bill has many problems 
because we chose to rush it to the floor because we had a deadline, and 
we cut off debate in committee.
  We found amendments offered to fix parts of this bill that do not fix 
them but actually make them worse.
  We have found out that the authors of the bill did not even know how 
much was going to be fined in the bill until we actually pointed it 
out.
  Now we come to the biggest part: I have been here all day listening 
to: We have to keep criminals from having firearms. We have to keep 
criminals from having firearms.
  I will say it once more, Madam Speaker: We must keep criminals from 
having firearms.
  I am glad to let you know, Madam Speaker, we are now giving everyone 
in this body a chance to do just that.
  A similar measure was promoted. What we are simply saying is that, if 
you have someone who is a criminal who came into our country 
illegally--criminal time number one--if they then try to buy or 
purchase a firearm which they are unable to do, that is the second 
strike as a criminal, and what we are simply saying is, if they do 
that, they will be reported to ICE.
  Now, which Members in this body are opposed to notifying law 
enforcement when a person prohibited from purchasing a firearm attempts 
to do so? Are we against that? No.
  I believe my friends across the aisle are not. I have heard it all 
day: We don't want criminals to have firearms.
  But my question to you now, Madam Speaker, is--be very careful. If 
you vote ``no'' on this motion to recommit, you cannot go back to your 
constituency, no matter what is said, and say: I voted to keep illegal 
aliens, those who should not have a firearm, from having a firearm.
  We have heard it all day. And you can moan, you can talk, you can 
think about it, but, again, Madam Speaker, I understand the sympathy 
and the concern and the pain upon this bill, but let's not kid 
ourselves. The bill itself guts itself when it will not even allow a 
registry which the Obama administration said it had.
  Let's actually get back to a point in saying, if there is something 
about this bill, give everybody an opportunity to actually keep a gun 
out of a criminal's hands and actually have that criminal punished for 
that by turning them in.
  But, Madam Speaker and my colleagues, please listen to me right now. 
Hear me clearly. Hear me clearly. No matter what will be said in just a 
moment, no matter what the chairman or anyone else will say about this 
bill, if you vote ``no,'' you are voting to allow someone who should 
not have a firearm to get away with it and not be prosecuted for it.
  Be very clear, Madam Speaker. You can try and make it look better. 
You can try and say: ``Well, it was not part of the bill. I have got to 
have the bill''; but never get away from the fact, Madam Speaker, if 
you vote ``no'' on this motion to recommit, you are making a choice to 
say: ``I guess some criminals can get away with trying to get a 
firearm.''
  That is why this motion to recommit needs a ``yes'' vote. This is why 
we on this side stand for making sure that proper firearm safety is 
upheld while our rights are being upheld and, at the same time, looking 
to find real solutions, not perpetrating a fraud on those who are 
scared simply to pass a piece of legislation.
  Madam Speaker, vote ``yes'' on the motion to recommit and actually 
keep guns out of criminals' hands.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I withdraw my reservation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The reservation of a point of order is 
withdrawn.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, let's remember what we are dealing with. 
We are dealing with the fact that current Federal law with respect to 
firearms background checks is dangerously limited and flawed because 
background checks are only required for sales by licensed gun dealers 
and that many, many people get a gun at a gun show or from someone 
else. Something like 20 percent, I think the figure is, or 25 percent 
of gun sales escape background checks.
  So all kinds of people who may be criminals, who may be mentally ill, 
and who may be domestic abusers who shouldn't have guns get guns, and 
that results in lives forfeited. It results in people killed.
  This bill goes a long way toward solving that by saying we are going 
to require background checks of everyone who gets a gun, with some 
exceptions, with some reasonable exceptions which are in the bill.
  Now, along comes this motion to recommit, which is a total red 
herring having nothing to do with the purpose of the bill, and says 
that, if someone fails a background check because he is illegally in 
this country, you should report that to ICE.

  First of all, if he fails a background check because he is illegally 
in the country, that means the system knows he is illegally in the 
country. It means they already know that.
  So what is the point of reporting him? He has to be in the system as 
illegally in the country in order to fail the background check because 
of section (g)(5). So we already know that, and this is totally 
circular, number one.
  Number two, this is just a red herring to try to mix up the 
immigration issue with the gun violence issue, and they really have 
nothing to do with each other.
  Number three, for 8 years, we couldn't get a hearing--not a hearing 
in a committee--on this bill or on any real bill to stop the plague of 
handgun violence in this country.
  Madam Speaker, 150 people killed in Great Britain, 95 in Austria or 
wherever, 39,000 in the United States--no one will tell me that 
Americans are 10,000 times as mentally ill as Europeans or Japanese. 
The problem is we don't have adequate protections on guns. This bill 
goes in the direction of doing it, and they want to sabotage the bill 
with a phony issue raised by this MTR.
  Now, there is an issue. If people fail the background check for 
various reasons, then you can make a case it should be reported to 
local law enforcement agencies. Mr. Cicilline has a bill to do just 
that. I am going to yield to him in a second. But the fact is it has 
nothing to do with this bill. It is just an attempt to sabotage this 
bill.
  If you believe that we ought to cut down on the plague of gun 
violence in this country, that we ought to save lives, that we ought to 
get rid of all these people who shouldn't have guns having guns, and 
that we ought to have background checks in sensible situations, then 
vote against the motion to recommit and for the bill.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. 
Cicilline).
  Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  We are on the precipice of passing the first commonsense gun safety 
bill in this Congress in 25 years. I have been here for 8 years. We 
begged and pleaded and had a sit-in to try to force Republicans to take 
up some measure to reduce gun violence in this country.
  There are women, men, and families all across America who are 
demanding that Congress do something. We are about to do this, and you 
raise a motion to recommit on a phony issue to try to muck this up with 
this gimmick. If you were concerned about reducing gun violence in this 
country and passing commonsense gun safety legislation, you had 8 years 
to bring a bill to the floor.
  But if you are really concerned about this, I have good news for you. 
I have legislation, because, in fact, if someone buys a gun who is a 
prohibited purchaser, whatever their immigration status is, if they 
have committed a crime, then they should be arrested

[[Page H2262]]

and prosecuted. Every single Democrat believes that.
  So I have a piece of legislation that says, if that happens, notify 
the field office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the local law 
enforcement agency, and the State law enforcement agency, the agencies 
responsible for enforcing the criminal law, so they can arrest and 
prosecute that person.
  I am looking for a Republican colead. I look forward to hearing from 
you.
  Madam Speaker, defeat this phony amendment and pass universal 
background checks.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, let us not accept this red herring. Let us 
not divert. Vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit and ``yes'' on the 
bill.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam 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, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage of the bill.
  This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 220, 
nays 209, not voting 3, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 98]

                               YEAS--220

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Axne
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brindisi
     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
     Costa
     Craig
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crist
     Cunningham
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     Delgado
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Finkenauer
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Golden
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gooden
     Gottheimer
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kim
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamb
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lee (NV)
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Luria
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McAdams
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     O'Halleran
     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 (NY)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sherrill
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Slotkin
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spanberger
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Torres Small (NM)
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Drew
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--209

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Amash
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     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
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Frankel
     Gosar
     Katko

                              {time}  1533

  Mr. NEAL changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. DAVIDSON of Ohio and MASSIE changed their vote from ``nay to 
``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the House 
on the motion to recommit, I report the bill, H.R. 8, back to the House 
with an amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:
  Amendment offered by Mr. Nadler:

       Page 5, after line 4, insert the following:
       ``(E) Regulations promulgated under this paragraph shall 
     include, in the case of a background check conducted by the 
     national instant criminal background check system in response 
     to a contact from a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, 
     or licensed dealer, which background check indicates that the 
     receipt of a firearm by a person would violate subsection 
     (g)(5), a requirement that the system notify U.S. Immigration 
     and Customs Enforcement.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland will state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, in order for the amendment that was just 
passed to be passed, am I correct that you would have to vote for this 
bill with that amendment now?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will put the question on the 
amendment and then the question on passage.
  Mr. HOYER. The vote now is to pass the bill as amended. Am I correct?
  My parliamentary inquiry is, if that does not pass, am I correct that 
the amendment that was just voted for by so many in this House, it 
would be defeated if the bill is defeated?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Following the disposition of the amendment, 
the Chair will put the question on passage of the bill.
  The question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.

[[Page H2263]]

  

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam 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 240, 
nays 190, not voting 2, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 99]

                               YEAS--240

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     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
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fitzpatrick
     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
     Hurd (TX)
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     King (NY)
     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
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Mast
     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
     Pelosi
     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
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Upton
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--190

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     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
     Duffy
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Golden
     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)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     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)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Turner
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Frankel
     Katko
       

                              {time}  1544

  Mrs. BEATTY changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________