Congressional Record, Volume 165 Issue 36 (Wednesday, February 27, 2019)

[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.

____________________