[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 99 (Thursday, June 9, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H5415-H5430]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  0915
           FEDERAL EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER ACT OF 2021

  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1153, I call 
up the bill (H.R. 2377) to authorize the issuance of extreme risk 
protection orders, and ask for its immediate consideration in the 
House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1153, in lieu 
of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
Committee on the Judiciary printed in the bill, an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 
117-46, modified by the amendment printed in House Report 117-356, is 
adopted, and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 2377

       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 ``Federal Extreme Risk 
     Protection Order Act of 2022''.

     SEC. 2. FEDERAL EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDERS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 44 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 932. Extreme risk protection orders

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section--
       ``(1) the term `court' means a district court of the United 
     States;
       ``(2) the term `designated law enforcement officer' means a 
     law enforcement officer, designated by a United States 
     marshal, who agrees to receive firearms, ammunition, and 
     permits, as applicable, surrendered under subsection (f);
       ``(3) the term `Director' means the Director of the 
     Administrative Office of the United States Courts;
       ``(4) the term `ex parte Federal extreme risk protection 
     order' or `ex parte Federal order' means a Federal extreme 
     risk protection order issued under subsection (c);
       ``(5) the term `Federal extreme risk protection order' 
     means an order issued by a Federal court that enjoins an 
     individual from purchasing, possessing, or receiving, in or 
     affecting interstate and foreign commerce, a firearm or 
     ammunition;
       ``(6) the term `family or household member', with respect 
     to a Federal order respondent, means any--
       ``(A) parent, spouse, sibling, or child related by blood, 
     marriage, or adoption to the respondent;
       ``(B) dating partner of the respondent;
       ``(C) individual who has a child in common with the 
     respondent, regardless of whether the individual has--
       ``(i) been married to the respondent; or
       ``(ii) lived together with the respondent at any time;
       ``(D) individual who resides or has resided with the 
     respondent during the past year;
       ``(E) domestic partner of the respondent;
       ``(F) individual who has a legal parent-child relationship 
     with the respondent, including a stepparent-stepchild and 
     grandparent-grandchild relationship; and
       ``(G) individual who is acting or has acted as the legal 
     guardian of the respondent;
       ``(7) the term `Federal order petitioner' means an 
     individual authorized to petition for an ex parte or long-
     term Federal extreme risk protection order under subsection 
     (b)(1);
       ``(8) the term `Federal order respondent' means an 
     individual named in the petition for an ex parte or long-term 
     Federal extreme risk protection order or subject to an ex 
     parte or long-term Federal extreme risk protection order;
       ``(9) the term `long-term Federal extreme risk protection 
     order' or `long-term Federal order' means a Federal extreme 
     risk protection order issued under subsection (d);
       ``(10) the term `mental health agency' means an agency of a 
     State, Tribal, or local government or its contracted agency 
     that is responsible for mental health services or co-
     occurring mental health and substance abuse services; and
       ``(11) the term `national instant criminal background check 
     system' means the national instant criminal background check 
     system established under section 103 of the Brady Handgun 
     Violence Prevention Act (34 U.S.C. 40901).
       ``(b) Petition.--
       ``(1) In general.--A family or household member of the 
     applicable individual, or a law enforcement officer, may 
     submit to an appropriate district court of the United States 
     a petition requesting that the court issue an ex parte 
     Federal extreme risk protection order or long-term Federal 
     extreme risk protection order with respect to an individual.
       ``(2) No fees.--A court or law enforcement agency may not 
     charge a petitioner or respondent any fee for--
       ``(A) filing, issuing, serving, or reporting an extreme 
     risk protection order;
       ``(B) a petition for an extreme risk protection order or 
     any pleading, subpoena, warrant, or motion in connection with 
     an extreme risk protection order; or
       ``(C) any order or order to show cause necessary to obtain 
     or give effect to this section.
       ``(3) Confidentiality.--A Federal order petitioner who is a 
     law enforcement officer may provide the identity of the 
     petitioner's sources, and any identifying information, to the 
     court under seal.
       ``(c) Ex Parte Orders.--
       ``(1) Timing.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     a court that receives a petition for an ex parte Federal 
     order under subsection (b) shall grant or deny the petition 
     on the date on which the petition is submitted.
       ``(B) Late petitions.--If a court receives a petition for 
     an ex parte Federal order submitted under subsection (b) too 
     late in the day to permit effective review, the court shall 
     grant or deny the petition on the next day of judicial 
     business at a time early enough to permit the court to file 
     an order with the clerk of the court during that day.
       ``(2) Evidence required.--Before issuing an ex parte 
     Federal order, a court shall require that the petitioner for 
     such order submit a signed affidavit, sworn to before the 
     court, that--
       ``(A) explains why such petitioner believes that the 
     Federal order respondent poses a risk of imminent personal 
     injury to self or another individual, by purchasing, 
     possessing, or receiving a firearm or ammunition; and
       ``(B) describes the interactions and conversations of the 
     petitioner with--
       ``(i) the respondent; or
       ``(ii) another individual, if such petitioner believes that 
     information obtained from that individual is credible and 
     reliable.
       ``(3) Standard for issuance of order.--A court may issue an 
     ex parte Federal order only upon a finding of probable cause 
     to believe that--
       ``(A) the Federal order respondent poses a risk of imminent 
     personal injury to self or another individual, by purchasing, 
     possessing, or receiving a firearm or ammunition; and
       ``(B) the order is necessary to prevent the injury 
     described in subparagraph (A).
       ``(4) Duration.--An ex parte Federal order shall expire on 
     the earlier of--
       ``(A) the date that is 14 days after the date of issuance; 
     or
       ``(B) the date on which the court determines whether to 
     issue a long-term Federal order with respect to the 
     respondent.
       ``(d) Long-term Federal Orders.--
       ``(1) Hearing required.--If a court receives a petition for 
     a long-term Federal extreme risk protection order for a 
     respondent under subsection (b), the court shall hold a 
     hearing to determine whether to issue a long-term Federal 
     order with respect to the respondent either--
       ``(A)(i) if the court issues an ex parte order with respect 
     to the respondent, not later than 72 hours after the ex parte 
     order is served on the respondent; or
       ``(ii) if the respondent waives the right to a hearing 
     within the 72-hour period under clause (i), or the court does 
     not issue an ex parte order, within 14 days after the date on 
     which the court receives the petition; or
       ``(B) in no event later than 14 days after the date on 
     which the court receives the petition.
       ``(2) Notice and opportunity to be heard.--
       ``(A) In general.--The court shall provide the Federal 
     order respondent with notice and the opportunity to be heard 
     at a hearing under this subsection, sufficient to protect the 
     due process rights of the respondent.
       ``(B) Right to counsel.--
       ``(i) In general.--At a hearing under this subsection, the 
     Federal order respondent may be represented by counsel who 
     is--

       ``(I) chosen by the respondent; and
       ``(II) authorized to practice at such a hearing.

       ``(ii) Court-provided counsel.--If the Federal order 
     respondent is financially unable to obtain representation by 
     counsel, the court, at the request of the respondent, shall 
     ensure, to the extent practicable, that the respondent is 
     represented by an attorney with respect to the petition.
       ``(3) Burden of proof; standard.--At a hearing under this 
     subsection, the Federal order petitioner--
       ``(A) shall have the burden of proving all material facts; 
     and
       ``(B) shall be required to demonstrate, by clear and 
     convincing evidence, that--
       ``(i) the respondent to such order poses a risk of personal 
     injury to self or another individual, during the period to be 
     covered by the proposed Federal extreme risk protection 
     order, by purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm or 
     ammunition; and
       ``(ii) the order is necessary to prevent the injury 
     described in clause (i).
       ``(4) Issuance.--Upon a showing of clear and convincing 
     evidence under paragraph (3), the court shall issue a long-
     term Federal order with

[[Page H5416]]

     respect to the respondent that shall be in effect for a 
     period of not more than 180 days.
       ``(5) Denial.--If the court finds that there is not clear 
     and convincing evidence to support the issuance of a long-
     term Federal order, the court shall dissolve any ex parte 
     Federal order then in effect with respect to the respondent.
       ``(6) Renewal.--
       ``(A) Notice of scheduled expiration.--Thirty days before 
     the date on which a long-term Federal order is scheduled to 
     expire, the court that issued the order shall--
       ``(i) notify the petitioner and the respondent to such 
     order that the order is scheduled to expire; and
       ``(ii) advise the petitioner and the respondent of the 
     procedures for seeking a renewal of the order under this 
     paragraph.
       ``(B) Petition.--If a family or household member of the 
     Federal order respondent, or a law enforcement officer, 
     believes that the conditions under paragraph (3)(B) continue 
     to apply with respect to a respondent who is subject to a 
     long-term Federal order, the family or household member or 
     law enforcement officer may submit to the court that issued 
     the order a petition for a renewal of the order.
       ``(C) Hearing.--A court that receives a petition submitted 
     under subparagraph (B) shall hold a hearing to determine 
     whether to issue a renewed long-term Federal order with 
     respect to the respondent.
       ``(D) Applicable procedures.--The requirements under 
     paragraphs (2) through (5) shall apply to the consideration 
     of a petition for a renewed long-term Federal order submitted 
     under subparagraph (B) of this paragraph.
       ``(E) Issuance.--Upon a showing by clear and convincing 
     evidence that the conditions under paragraph (3)(B) continue 
     to apply with respect to the respondent, the court shall 
     issue a renewed long-term Federal order with respect to the 
     respondent.
       ``(e) Factors to Consider.--In determining whether to issue 
     a Federal extreme risk protection order, a court--
       ``(1) shall consider factors including--
       ``(A) a recent threat or act of violence by the respondent 
     directed toward another individual;
       ``(B) a recent threat or act of violence by the respondent 
     directed toward self;
       ``(C) a recent act of cruelty to an animal by the 
     respondent; and
       ``(D) evidence of ongoing abuse of a controlled substance 
     or alcohol by the respondent that has led to a threat or act 
     of violence directed to self or another individual; and
       ``(2) may consider other factors, including--
       ``(A) the reckless use, display, or brandishing of a 
     firearm by the respondent;
       ``(B) a history of violence or attempted violence by the 
     respondent against another individual; and
       ``(C) evidence of an explicit or implicit threat made by 
     the person through any medium that demonstrate that the 
     person poses a risk of personal injury to self or another 
     individual.
       ``(f) Relinquishment of Firearms and Ammunition.--
       ``(1) Order of surrender.--Upon issuance of an ex parte 
     Federal order or long-term Federal order, the court shall 
     order the respondent to such order to surrender all firearms 
     and ammunition that the respondent possesses or owns, in or 
     affecting interstate commerce, as well as any permit 
     authorizing the respondent to purchase or possess firearms 
     (including a concealed carry permit), to--
       ``(A) the United States Marshals Service; or
       ``(B) a designated law enforcement officer.
       ``(2) Surrender and removal.--
       ``(A) Manner of service.--
       ``(i) Personal service.--Except as provided in clause (ii), 
     a United States marshal or designated law enforcement officer 
     shall serve a Federal extreme risk protection order on a 
     respondent by handing the order to the respondent to such 
     order.
       ``(ii) Alternative service.--If the respondent cannot 
     reasonably be located for service as described in clause (i), 
     a Federal extreme risk protection order may be served on the 
     respondent in any manner authorized under the Federal Rules 
     of Civil Procedure.
       ``(B) Removal.--Except as provided in subparagraph (C), a 
     United States marshal or designated law enforcement officer 
     serving a Federal extreme risk protection order personally on 
     the respondent shall--
       ``(i) request that all firearms and ammunition, in or 
     affecting interstate commerce, as well as any permit 
     authorizing the respondent to purchase or possess firearms 
     (including a concealed carry permit), that the respondent 
     possesses or owns--

       ``(I) be immediately surrendered to the United States 
     marshal or designated law enforcement officer; or
       ``(II) at the option of the respondent, be immediately 
     surrendered and sold to a federally licensed firearms dealer; 
     and

       ``(ii) take possession of all firearms and ammunition 
     described in clause (i) that are not sold under subclause 
     (II) of that clause, as well as any permit described in that 
     clause, that are--

       ``(I) surrendered;
       ``(II) in plain sight; or
       ``(III) discovered pursuant to a lawful search.

       ``(C) Alternative surrender.--If a United States marshal or 
     designated law enforcement officer is not able to personally 
     serve a Federal extreme risk protection order under 
     subparagraph (A)(i), or is not reasonably able to take 
     custody of the firearms, ammunition, and permits under 
     subparagraph (B), the respondent shall surrender the 
     firearms, ammunition, and permits in a safe manner to the 
     control of a United States marshal or designated law 
     enforcement officer not later than 48 hours after being 
     served with the order.
       ``(3) Receipt.--
       ``(A) Issuance.--At the time of surrender or removal under 
     paragraph (2), a United States marshal or designated law 
     enforcement officer taking possession of a firearm, 
     ammunition, or a permit pursuant to a Federal extreme risk 
     protection order shall--
       ``(i) issue a receipt identifying all firearms, ammunition, 
     and permits that have been surrendered or removed; and
       ``(ii) provide a copy of the receipt issued under clause 
     (i) to the respondent to such order.
       ``(B) Filing.--Not later than 72 hours after issuance of a 
     receipt under subparagraph (A), the United States marshal who 
     issued the receipt or designated another law enforcement 
     officer to do so shall--
       ``(i) file the original receipt issued under subparagraph 
     (A) of this paragraph with the court that issued the Federal 
     extreme risk protection order; and
       ``(ii) ensure that the United States Marshals Service 
     retains a copy of the receipt.
       ``(C) Designated law enforcement officer.--If a designated 
     law enforcement officer issues a receipt under subparagraph 
     (A), the officer shall submit the original receipt and a copy 
     of the receipt to the appropriate United States marshal to 
     enable the United States marshal to comply with subparagraph 
     (B).
       ``(4) Forfeiture.--If a respondent knowingly attempts, in 
     violation of a Federal extreme risk protection order, to 
     access a firearm, ammunition, or a permit that was 
     surrendered or removed under this subsection, the firearm, 
     ammunition, or permit shall be subject to seizure and 
     forfeiture under section 924(d).
       ``(g) Return of Firearms and Ammunition.--
       ``(1) Notice.--If a Federal extreme risk protection order 
     is dissolved, or expires and is not renewed, the court that 
     issued the order shall order the United States Marshals 
     Service to--
       ``(A) confirm, through the national instant criminal 
     background check system and any other relevant law 
     enforcement databases, that the respondent to such order may 
     lawfully own and possess firearms and ammunition; and
       ``(B)(i) if the respondent may lawfully own and possess 
     firearms and ammunition, notify the respondent that the 
     respondent may retrieve each firearm, ammunition, or permit 
     surrendered by or removed from the respondent under 
     subsection (f); or
       ``(ii) if the respondent may not lawfully own or possess 
     firearms and ammunition, notify the respondent that each 
     firearm, ammunition, or permit surrendered by or removed from 
     the respondent under subsection (f) will be returned only 
     when the respondent demonstrates to the United States 
     Marshals Service that the respondent may lawfully own and 
     possess firearms and ammunition.
       ``(2) Return.--If a Federal extreme risk protection order 
     is dissolved, or expires and is not renewed, and the United 
     States Marshals Service confirms under paragraph (1)(A) that 
     the respondent may lawfully own and possess firearms and 
     ammunition, the court that issued the order shall order the 
     entity that possesses each firearm, ammunition, or permit 
     surrendered by or removed from the respondent under 
     subsection (f) to return those items to the respondent.
       ``(h) Return of Firearms and Ammunition Improperly 
     Received.--If a court, in a hearing under subsection (d), 
     determines that a firearm or ammunition surrendered by or 
     removed from a respondent under subsection (f) is owned by an 
     individual other than the respondent, the court may order the 
     United States marshal or designated law enforcement officer 
     in possession of the firearm or ammunition to transfer the 
     firearm or ammunition to that individual if--
       ``(1) the individual may lawfully own and possess firearms 
     and ammunition; and
       ``(2) the individual will not provide the respondent with 
     access to the firearm or ammunition.
       ``(i) Penalty for False Reporting or Frivolous Petitions.--
     An individual who knowingly submits materially false 
     information to the court in a petition for a Federal extreme 
     risk protection order under this section, or who knowingly 
     files such a petition that is frivolous, unreasonable, or 
     without foundation, shall be fined not more than $5,000, or 
     imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, except to the 
     extent that a greater sentence is otherwise provided by any 
     other provision of law, as the court deems necessary to deter 
     such abuse of process.
       ``(j) Model Policy.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Director shall draft a model policy 
     to maximize the accessibility of Federal extreme risk 
     protection orders.
       ``(2) Contents.--In drafting the model policy under 
     paragraph (1), the Director shall--
       ``(A) ensure that State, Tribal, and local law enforcement 
     officers and members of the public without legal training are 
     able to easily file petitions for Federal extreme risk 
     protection orders;
       ``(B) prescribe outreach efforts by employees of the 
     district courts of the United States to familiarize relevant 
     law enforcement officers and the public with the procedures 
     for filing petitions, either--
       ``(i) through direct outreach; or
       ``(ii) in coordination with--

       ``(I) relevant officials in the executive or legislative 
     branch of the Federal Government; or
       ``(II) with relevant State, Tribal, and local officials;

       ``(C) prescribe policies for allowing the filing of 
     petitions and prompt adjudication of petitions on weekends 
     and outside of normal court hours;
       ``(D) prescribe policies for coordinating with law 
     enforcement agencies to ensure the safe, timely, and 
     effective service of Federal extreme risk protection orders 
     and relinquishment of firearms, ammunition, and permits, as 
     applicable; and
       ``(E) identify governmental and non-governmental resources 
     and partners to help officials

[[Page H5417]]

     of the district courts of the United States coordinate with 
     civil society organizations to ensure the safe and effective 
     implementation of this section.
       ``(k) Reporting.--
       ``(1) Individual reports.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 2 court days after the 
     date on which a court issues or dissolves a Federal extreme 
     risk protection order under this section or a Federal extreme 
     risk protection order expires without being renewed, the 
     court shall notify--
       ``(i) the Attorney General;
       ``(ii) each relevant mental health agency in the State in 
     which the order is issued; and
       ``(iii) State and local law enforcement officials in the 
     jurisdiction in which the order is issued, including the 
     national instant criminal background check system single 
     point of contact for the State of residence of the 
     respondent, where applicable.
       ``(B) Format.--A court shall submit a notice under 
     subparagraph (A) in an electronic format, in a manner 
     prescribed by the Attorney General.
       ``(C) Update of databases.--As soon as practicable and not 
     later than 5 days after receiving a notice under subparagraph 
     (A), the Attorney General shall update the background check 
     databases of the Attorney General to reflect the prohibitions 
     articulated in the applicable Federal extreme risk protection 
     order.
       ``(2) Annual report.--Not later than 1 year after the date 
     of enactment of the Federal Extreme Risk Protection Order Act 
     of 2022, and annually thereafter, the Director shall submit 
     to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the 
     Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a 
     report that includes, with respect to the preceding year--
       ``(A) the number of petitions for ex parte Federal orders 
     filed, as well as the number of such orders issued and the 
     number denied, disaggregated by--
       ``(i) the jurisdiction;
       ``(ii) whether the individual authorized under subsection 
     (b) to petition for a Federal extreme risk protection order 
     is a law enforcement officer, or a family or household 
     member, and in the case of a family or household member, 
     which of subparagraphs (A) through (G) of subsection (a)(6) 
     describes the relationship; and
       ``(iii) the alleged danger posed by the Federal order 
     respondent, including whether the danger involved a risk of 
     suicide, unintentional injury, domestic violence, or other 
     interpersonal violence;
       ``(B) the number of petitions for long-term Federal orders 
     filed, as well as the number of such orders issued and the 
     number denied, disaggregated by--
       ``(i) the jurisdiction;
       ``(ii) whether the individual authorized under subsection 
     (b) to petition for a Federal extreme risk protection order 
     is a law enforcement officer, or a family or household 
     member, and in the case of a family or household member, 
     which of subparagraphs (A) through (G) of subsection (a)(6) 
     describes the relationship; and
       ``(iii) the alleged danger posed by the Federal order 
     respondent, including whether the danger involved a risk of 
     suicide, unintentional injury, domestic violence, or other 
     interpersonal violence;
       ``(C) the number of petitions for renewals of long-term 
     Federal orders filed, as well as the number of such orders 
     issued and the number denied;
       ``(D) the number of cases in which a court has issued a 
     penalty for false reporting or frivolous petitions;
       ``(E) demographic data of Federal order petitioners, 
     including race, ethnicity, national origin, sex, gender, age, 
     disability, average annual income, and English language 
     proficiency, if available;
       ``(F) demographic data of Federal order respondents, 
     including race, ethnicity, national origin, sex, gender, age, 
     disability, average annual income, and English language 
     proficiency, if available; and
       ``(G) the total number of firearms removed pursuant to 
     Federal extreme risk protection orders, and, if available, 
     the number of firearms removed pursuant to each such order.
       ``(l) Training for Federal Law Enforcement Officers.--
       ``(1) Training requirements.--The head of each Federal law 
     enforcement agency shall require each Federal law enforcement 
     officer employed by the agency to complete training in the 
     safe, impartial, effective, and equitable use and 
     administration of Federal extreme risk protection orders, 
     including training to address--
       ``(A) bias based on race and racism, ethnicity, gender, 
     sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, language 
     proficiency, mental health condition, disability, and 
     classism in the use and administration of Federal extreme 
     risk protection orders;
       ``(B) the appropriate use of Federal extreme risk 
     protection orders in cases of domestic violence, including 
     the applicability of other policies and protocols to address 
     domestic violence in situations that may also involve Federal 
     extreme risk protection orders and the necessity of safety 
     planning with the victim before law enforcement petitions for 
     and executes a Federal extreme risk protection order, if 
     applicable;
       ``(C) interacting with persons with mental, behavioral, or 
     physical disabilities, or emotional distress, including de-
     escalation techniques and crisis intervention;
       ``(D) techniques for outreach to historically marginalized 
     cultural communities and the development of linguistic 
     proficiencies for law enforcement;
       ``(E) community relations; and
       ``(F) best practices for referring persons subject to 
     Federal extreme risk protection orders and associated victims 
     of violence to social service providers that may be available 
     in the jurisdiction and appropriate for those individuals, 
     including health care, mental health, substance abuse, and 
     legal services, employment and vocational services, housing 
     assistance, case management, and veterans and disability 
     benefits.
       ``(2) Training development.--Federal law enforcement 
     agencies developing law enforcement training required under 
     this section shall seek advice from domestic violence service 
     providers (including culturally specific (as defined in 
     section 40002 of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (34 
     U.S.C. 12291)) providers), social service providers, suicide 
     prevention advocates, violence intervention specialists, law 
     enforcement agencies, mental health disability experts, and 
     other community groups working to reduce suicides and 
     violence, including domestic violence, within the State.
       ``(m) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section or 
     shall be construed to alter the requirements of subsections 
     (d)(8) or (g)(8) of section 922, related to domestic violence 
     protective orders.
       ``(n) Preemption.--Nothing in this section may be construed 
     to preempt any State law or policy.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Table of sections.--The table of sections for chapter 
     44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:

``932. Extreme risk protection orders.''.
       (2) Forfeiture.--Section 924(d)(3) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in subparagraph (F), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(G) any attempt to violate a Federal extreme risk 
     protection order issued under section 932.''.

     SEC. 3. FEDERAL FIREARMS PROHIBITION.

       Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (d)--
       (A) in paragraph (8)(B)(ii), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (B) in paragraph (9), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following:
       ``(10) is subject to a court order--
       ``(A) issued under section 932; or
       ``(B) that is an extreme risk protection order (as defined 
     in section 4(a) of the Federal Extreme Risk Protection Order 
     Act of 2022).''; and
       (2) in subsection (g)--
       (A) in paragraph (8)(C)(ii), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (B) in paragraph (9), by striking the comma at the end and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following:
       ``(10) is subject to a court order--
       ``(A) issued under section 932; or
       ``(B) that is an extreme risk protection order (as defined 
     in section 4(a) of the Federal Extreme Risk Protection Order 
     Act of 2022),''.

     SEC. 4. EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER GRANT PROGRAM.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Eligible entity.--The term ``eligible entity'' means--
       (A) a State or Indian Tribe--
       (i) that enacts legislation described in subsection (c);
       (ii) with respect to which the Attorney General determines 
     that the legislation described in clause (i) complies with 
     the requirements under subsection (c)(1); and
       (iii) that certifies to the Attorney General that the State 
     or Indian Tribe shall--

       (I) use the grant for the purposes described in subsection 
     (b)(2); and
       (II) allocate not less than 25 percent and not more than 70 
     percent of the amount received under a grant under subsection 
     (b) for the development and dissemination of training for law 
     enforcement officers in accordance with subsection (b)(4); or

       (B) a unit of local government or other public or private 
     entity that--
       (i) is located in a State or in the territory under the 
     jurisdiction of an Indian Tribe that meets the requirements 
     described in clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (A); and
       (ii) certifies to the Attorney General that the unit of 
     local government or entity shall--

       (I) use the grant for the purposes described in subsection 
     (b)(2); and
       (II) allocate not less than 25 percent and not more than 70 
     percent of the amount received under a grant under this 
     section for the development and dissemination of training for 
     law enforcement officers in accordance with subsection 
     (b)(4).

       (2) Extreme risk protection order.--The term ``extreme risk 
     protection order'' means a written order or warrant, issued 
     by a State or Tribal court or signed by a magistrate (or 
     other comparable judicial officer), the primary purpose of 
     which is to reduce the risk of firearm-related death or 
     injury by doing 1 or more of the following:
       (A) Prohibiting a named individual from having under the 
     custody or control of the individual, owning, purchasing, 
     possessing, or receiving a firearm.
       (B) Having a firearm removed or requiring the surrender of 
     firearms from a named individual.
       (3) Firearm.--The term ``firearm'' has the meaning given 
     the term in section 921 of title 18, United States Code.
       (4) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian Tribe'' has the 
     meaning given the term ``Indian tribe'' in section 1709 of 
     title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 
     1968 (34 U.S.C. 10389).

[[Page H5418]]

       (5) Law enforcement officer.--The term ``law enforcement 
     officer'' means a public servant authorized by Federal, 
     State, local, or Tribal law or by a Federal, State, local, or 
     Tribal government agency to--
       (A) engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, 
     investigation, or prosecution of an offense; or
       (B) supervise sentenced criminal offenders.
       (6) Petitioner.--The term ``petitioner'' means an 
     individual authorized under State or Tribal law to petition 
     for an extreme risk protection order.
       (7) Respondent.--The term ``respondent'' means an 
     individual named in the petition for an extreme risk 
     protection order or subject to an extreme risk protection 
     order.
       (8) State.--The term ``State'' means--
       (A) a State;
       (B) the District of Columbia;
       (C) the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; and
       (D) any other territory or possession of the United States.
       (9) Unit of local government.--The term ``unit of local 
     government'' has the meaning given the term in section 901 of 
     title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 
     1968 (34 U.S.C. 10251).
       (b) Grant Program Established.--
       (1) In general.--The Director of the Office of Community 
     Oriented Policing Services of the Department of Justice shall 
     establish a program under which, from amounts made available 
     to carry out this section, the Director may make grants to 
     eligible entities to assist in carrying out the provisions of 
     the legislation described in subsection (c).
       (2) Use of funds.--Funds awarded under this subsection may 
     be used by an applicant to--
       (A) enhance the capacity of law enforcement agencies and 
     the courts of a State, unit of local government, or Indian 
     Tribe by providing personnel, training, technical assistance, 
     data collection, and other resources to carry out enacted 
     legislation described in subsection (c);
       (B) train judges, court personnel, health care and legal 
     professionals, and law enforcement officers to more 
     accurately identify individuals whose access to firearms 
     poses a danger of causing harm to themselves or others by 
     increasing the risk of firearms suicide or interpersonal 
     violence;
       (C) develop and implement law enforcement and court 
     protocols, forms, and orders so that law enforcement agencies 
     and the courts may carry out the provisions of the enacted 
     legislation described in subsection (c) in a safe, equitable, 
     and effective manner, including through the removal and 
     storage of firearms pursuant to extreme risk protection 
     orders under the enacted legislation; and
       (D) raise public awareness and understanding of the enacted 
     legislation described in subsection (c), including through 
     subgrants to community-based organizations for the training 
     of community members, so that extreme risk protection orders 
     may be issued in appropriate situations to reduce the risk of 
     firearms-related death and injury.
       (3) Application.--An eligible entity desiring a grant under 
     this subsection shall submit to the Attorney General an 
     application at such time, in such manner, and containing or 
     accompanied by such information as the Attorney General may 
     reasonably require.
       (4) Training.--
       (A) In general.--A recipient of a grant under this 
     subsection shall provide training to law enforcement 
     officers, including officers of relevant Federal, State, 
     local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies, in the safe, 
     impartial, effective, and equitable use and administration of 
     extreme risk protection orders, including training to 
     address--
       (i) bias based on race and racism, ethnicity, gender, 
     sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, language 
     proficiency, mental health condition, disability, and 
     classism in the use and administration of extreme risk 
     protection orders;
       (ii) the appropriate use of extreme risk protection orders 
     in cases of domestic violence, including the applicability of 
     other policies and protocols to address domestic violence in 
     situations that may also involve extreme risk protection 
     orders and the necessity of safety planning with the victim 
     before a law enforcement officer petitions for and executes 
     an extreme risk protection order, if applicable;
       (iii) interacting with persons with mental, behavioral, or 
     physical disabilities, or emotional distress, including de-
     escalation techniques and crisis intervention;
       (iv) techniques for outreach to historically marginalized 
     cultural communities and the development of linguistic 
     proficiencies for law enforcement;
       (v) community relations; and
       (vi) best practices for referring persons subject to 
     extreme risk protection orders and associated victims of 
     violence to social service providers that may be available in 
     the jurisdiction and appropriate for those individuals, 
     including health care, mental health, substance abuse, and 
     legal services, employment and vocational services, housing 
     assistance, case management, and veterans and disability 
     benefits.
       (B) Consultation with experts.--A recipient of a grant 
     under this subsection, in developing law enforcement training 
     required under subparagraph (A), shall seek advice from 
     domestic violence service providers (including culturally 
     specific (as defined in section 40002 of the Violence Against 
     Women Act of 1994 (34 U.S.C. 12291)) providers), social 
     service providers, suicide prevention advocates, violence 
     intervention specialists, law enforcement agencies, mental 
     health disability experts, and other community groups working 
     to reduce suicides and violence, including domestic violence, 
     within the State or the territory under the jurisdiction of 
     the Indian Tribe, as applicable, that enacted the legislation 
     described in subsection (c) that enabled the grant recipient 
     to be an eligible entity.
       (5) Incentives.--For each of fiscal years 2023 through 
     2027, the Attorney General shall give affirmative preference 
     in awarding any discretionary grant awarded by the Office of 
     Community Oriented Policing Services to a State or Indian 
     Tribe that has enacted legislation described in subsection 
     (c) or to a unit of local government or other public or 
     private entity located in such a State or in the territory 
     under the jurisdiction of such an Indian Tribe.
       (6) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out 
     this section.
       (c) Eligibility for Extreme Risk Protection Order Grant 
     Program.--
       (1) Requirements.--Legislation described in this subsection 
     is legislation that establishes requirements that are 
     substantially similar to the following:
       (A) Application for extreme risk protection order.--A 
     petitioner, including a law enforcement officer, may submit 
     an application to a State or Tribal court, on a form designed 
     by the court or a State or Tribal agency, that--
       (i) describes the facts and circumstances justifying that 
     an extreme risk protection order be issued against the named 
     individual; and
       (ii) is signed by the applicant, under oath.
       (B) Notice and due process.--The individual named in an 
     application for an extreme risk protection order as described 
     in subparagraph (A) shall be given written notice of the 
     application and an opportunity to be heard on the matter in 
     accordance with this paragraph.
       (C) Issuance of extreme risk protection orders.--
       (i) Hearing.--

       (I) In general.--Upon receipt of an application described 
     in subparagraph (A) or request of an individual named in such 
     an application, the court shall order a hearing to be held 
     within a reasonable time, and not later than 30 days after 
     the date of the application or request.
       (II) Determination.--If the court finds at the hearing 
     ordered under subclause (I), by a preponderance of the 
     evidence or according to a higher evidentiary standard 
     established by the State or Indian Tribe, that the respondent 
     poses a danger of causing harm to self or others by having 
     access to a firearm, the court may issue an extreme risk 
     protection order.

       (ii) Duration of extreme risk protection order.--An extreme 
     risk protection order shall be in effect--

       (I) until an order terminating or superseding the extreme 
     risk protection order is issued; or
       (II) for a set period of time.

       (D) Ex parte extreme risk protection orders.--
       (i) In general.--Upon receipt of an application described 
     in subparagraph (A), the court may issue an ex parte extreme 
     risk protection order, if--

       (I) the application for an extreme risk protection order 
     alleges that the respondent poses a danger of causing harm to 
     self or others by having access to a firearm; and
       (II) the court finds there is reasonable cause to believe, 
     or makes a finding according to a higher evidentiary standard 
     established by the State or Indian Tribe, that the respondent 
     poses a danger of causing harm to self or others by having 
     access to a firearm.

       (ii) Duration of ex parte extreme risk protection order.--
     An ex parte extreme risk protection order shall remain in 
     effect only until the hearing required under subparagraph 
     (C)(i).
       (E) Storage of removed firearms.--
       (i) Availability for return.--All firearms removed or 
     surrendered pursuant to an extreme risk protection order 
     shall only be available for return to the named individual 
     when the individual has regained eligibility under Federal 
     and State law, and, where applicable, Tribal law to possess 
     firearms.
       (ii) Consent required for disposal or destruction.--
     Firearms owned by a named individual may not be disposed of 
     or destroyed during the period of the extreme risk protection 
     order without the consent of the named individual.
       (F) Notification.--
       (i) In general.--

       (I) Requirement.--A State or Tribal court that issues an 
     extreme risk protection order shall notify the Attorney 
     General or the comparable State or Tribal agency, as 
     applicable, of the order as soon as practicable or within a 
     designated period of time.
       (II) Form and manner.--A State or Tribal court shall submit 
     a notification under subclause (I) in an electronic format, 
     in a manner prescribed by the Attorney General or the 
     comparable State or Tribal agency.

       (ii) Update of databases.--As soon as practicable or within 
     the time period designated by State or Tribal law after 
     receiving a notification under clause (i), the Attorney 
     General or the comparable State or Tribal agency shall ensure 
     that the extreme risk protection order is reflected in the 
     National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

[[Page H5419]]

       (2) Additional provisions.--Legislation described in this 
     subsection may--
       (A) provide procedures for the termination of an extreme 
     risk protection order;
       (B) provide procedures for the renewal of an extreme risk 
     protection order;
       (C) establish burdens and standards of proof for issuance 
     of orders described in paragraph (1) that are substantially 
     similar to or higher than the burdens and standards of proof 
     set forth in that paragraph;
       (D) limit the individuals who may submit an application 
     described in paragraph (1), provided that, at a minimum, law 
     enforcement officers are authorized to do so; and
       (E) include any other authorizations or requirements that 
     the State or Tribal authorities determine appropriate.
       (3) Annual report.--Not later than 1 year after the date on 
     which an eligible entity receives a grant under subsection 
     (b), and annually thereafter for the duration of the grant 
     period, the entity shall submit to the Attorney General a 
     report that includes, with respect to the preceding year--
       (A) the number of petitions for ex parte extreme risk 
     protection orders filed, as well as the number of such orders 
     issued and the number denied, disaggregated by--
       (i) the jurisdiction;
       (ii) the individual authorized under State or Tribal law to 
     petition for an extreme risk protection order, including the 
     relationship of the individual to the respondent; and
       (iii) the alleged danger posed by the respondent, including 
     whether the danger involved a risk of suicide, unintentional 
     injury, domestic violence, or other interpersonal violence;
       (B) the number of petitions for extreme risk protection 
     orders filed, as well as the number of such orders issued and 
     the number denied, disaggregated by--
       (i) the jurisdiction;
       (ii) the individual authorized under State or Tribal law to 
     petition for an extreme risk protection order, including the 
     relationship of the individual to the respondent; and
       (iii) the alleged danger posed by the respondent, including 
     whether the danger involved a risk of suicide, unintentional 
     injury, domestic violence, or other interpersonal violence;
       (C) the number of petitions for renewals of extreme risk 
     protection orders filed, as well as the number of such orders 
     issued and the number denied;
       (D) the number of cases in which a court imposed a penalty 
     for false reporting or frivolous petitions;
       (E) demographic data of petitioners, including race, 
     ethnicity, national origin, sex, gender, age, disability, 
     average annual income, and English language proficiency, if 
     available;
       (F) demographic data of respondents, including race, 
     ethnicity, national origin, sex, gender, age, disability, 
     average annual income, and English language proficiency, if 
     available; and
       (G) the total number of firearms removed pursuant to 
     extreme risk protection orders, and, if available, the number 
     of firearms removed pursuant to each such order.

     SEC. 5. IDENTIFICATION RECORDS.

        Section 534 of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
       ``(4)(A) subject to subparagraph (B), acquire, collect, 
     classify, and preserve records from Federal, Tribal, and 
     State courts and other agencies identifying individuals 
     subject to extreme risk protection orders, as defined in 
     section 4(a) of the Federal Extreme Risk Protection Order Act 
     of 2022; and
       ``(B) destroy each record acquired or collected under 
     subparagraph (A) when the applicable extreme risk protection 
     order expires or is terminated or dissolved; and'';
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``(a)(4)'' and inserting 
     ``(a)(5)''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) Extreme Risk Protection Orders in National Crime 
     Information Databases.--A Federal, Tribal, or State criminal 
     justice agency or criminal or civil court may--
       ``(1) include extreme risk protection orders, as defined in 
     section 4 of the Federal Extreme Risk Protection Order Act of 
     2022, and Federal extreme risk protection orders, as defined 
     in section 932 of title 18, in national crime information 
     databases, as that term is defined in subsection (f)(3) of 
     this section; and
       ``(2) have access to information regarding extreme risk 
     protection orders and Federal extreme risk protection orders 
     through the national crime information databases.''.

     SEC. 6. FULL FAITH AND CREDIT.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section, the terms ``extreme risk 
     protection order'', ``Indian Tribe'', and ``State'' have the 
     meanings given those terms in section 4(a).
       (b) Full Faith and Credit Required.--Any extreme risk 
     protection order issued under a State or Tribal law enacted 
     in accordance with this Act shall be accorded the same full 
     faith and credit by the court of another State or Indian 
     Tribe (referred to in this subsection as the ``enforcing 
     State or Indian Tribe'') and enforced by the court and law 
     enforcement personnel of the other State or Tribal government 
     as if it were the order of the enforcing State or Indian 
     Tribe.
       (c) Applicability to Protection Orders.--
       (1) In general.--Subsection (b) shall apply to a protection 
     order issued by a State or Tribal court if--
       (A) the court has jurisdiction over the parties and matter 
     under the law of the State or Indian Tribe; and
       (B) reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard is given 
     to the person against whom the order is sought sufficient to 
     protect that person's right to due process.
       (2) Ex parte protection orders.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (1)(B), in the case of an ex parte protection order, notice 
     and opportunity to be heard shall be provided within the time 
     required by State or Tribal law, and in any event within a 
     reasonable time after the order is issued, sufficient to 
     protect the due process rights of the respondent.
       (d) Tribal Court Jurisdiction.--For purposes of this 
     section, a court of an Indian Tribe shall have full civil 
     jurisdiction to issue and enforce a protection order 
     involving any person, including the authority to enforce any 
     order through civil contempt proceedings, to exclude 
     violators from Indian land, and to use other appropriate 
     mechanisms, in matters arising anywhere in the Indian country 
     (as defined in section 1151 of title 18, United States Code) 
     of the Indian Tribe or otherwise within the authority of the 
     Indian Tribe.

     SEC. 7. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.

       Section 3(1) of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 
     (34 U.S.C. 40903(1)) is amended by striking ``section 
     922(g)(8)'' and inserting ``paragraph (8) or (10) of section 
     922(g)''.

     SEC. 8. SEVERABILITY.

       If any provision of this Act, or an amendment made by this 
     Act, or the application of such provision to any person or 
     circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this 
     Act, or an amendment made by this Act, or the application of 
     such provision to other persons or circumstances, shall not 
     be affected.

     SEC. 9. EFFECTIVE DATE.

        This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take 
     effect on the date that is 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Hayes). The bill, as amended, shall be 
debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the Chair and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their 
respective designees.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Jordan) will each control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.


                             General Leave

  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and insert extraneous material on H.R. 2377.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, over the past several weeks, we have watched in horror 
as gun violence has touched communities across the country and dozens 
of people, young and old, have lost their lives. The details of each 
case may differ, each tragic in its own way, but there is one theme 
that comes up most often; someone deeply troubled, experiencing some 
sort of crisis, had easy access to firearms. And all too often, the 
warning signs were clear, but nothing was done to keep guns out of 
their hands before it was too late.
  H.R. 2377, the Federal Extreme Risk Protection Order Act, provides a 
sensible means by which someone who is exhibiting dangerous behavior 
can be prevented from possessing or purchasing firearms before tragedy 
strikes.
  This legislation, introduced by Representative Lucy McBath, 
authorizes Federal courts to issue an extreme risk protection order, or 
ERPO, temporarily removing firearms from a person in crisis and 
preventing them from purchasing firearms. This only occurs after the 
court determines that there is evidence demonstrating that the person 
poses an imminent danger of injuring himself, herself, or others.
  The bill also includes legislation by Representative Salud Carbajal, 
which provides funding to States to enact ERPO statutes of their own.
  We know that extreme risk laws save lives. We have witnessed their 
effectiveness in State after State, beginning in 2016, when California 
passed the first such law. Since then, 18 other States and the District 
of Columbia have enacted similar laws.
  An analysis of the first 3 years of California's extreme risk law 
found

[[Page H5420]]

that these orders were used for 58 mass shooting threats, including six 
in which a minor threatened to target a school.
  These orders were also used in response to 82 threats of suicide, and 
they worked. No suicides occurred among individuals who were subject to 
the orders.
  Federal courts have long been bastions of due process and, 
accordingly, this legislation includes strong due process provisions 
that strike the appropriate balance between protecting the rights of 
the gun owner and ensuring community safety. Every court that has 
reviewed laws similar to this bill has found that the procedural 
safeguards are sufficient.
  And as then-Seventh Circuit Judge Amy Coney Barrett wrote, ``History 
is consistent with common sense: It demonstrates that legislatures have 
the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns.''
  Madam Speaker, the Constitution does not require us to wait until 
lives are lost.
  As we address the scourge of gun violence, a blight that killed 
45,000 Americans in 2020 alone, let us remember that there are no 
perfect solutions. We are painfully aware that we cannot do enough to 
save every life, and there is no one answer that will solve this 
problem.
  But we do know that taking guns out of the hands of people who pose a 
danger to themselves or others would save countless lives. This 
legislation would take meaningful steps to prevent gun violence 
tragedies in our communities while, at the same time, protecting the 
due process of rights of those individuals in crisis.
  I thank Representatives McBath and Carbajal for their leadership on 
this issue. I urge all Members to support the bill, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Jordan for 
yielding.
  You know, we have heard some revealing things this week. It was just 
a few moments ago our colleague from Tennessee, Mr. Cohen, lectured us 
that the Old Testament doesn't mention the word ``guns'' and so we 
shouldn't claim that this is a fundamental freedom. You know, as usual, 
he misunderstands the point of Scripture and the Constitution.
  Here is the thing: As Americans, we respect and we protect the 
unalienable, God-given right to self-protection and to the protection 
of innocent lives around us.
  President Biden said--among other outrageous things this week we have 
heard, President Biden said that he wanted to ban 9-millimeter 
handguns. That is one of the most widely owned handguns by law-abiding 
citizens in this country.
  Mr. Cicilline of Rhode Island, now infamously in our committee 
hearing, exclaimed, ``Spare me the'' B.S.--that is not what he said--
``Spare me the'' B.S. ``about constitutional rights.'' That is pretty 
revealing.
  Mr. Jones, in the same hearing, just a few moments later, he said 
that if Democrats don't get their way on their gun control wish list, 
that they will abolish the filibuster and pack the Supreme Court. They 
are saying the quiet parts out loud.
  See, that wish list that they have includes taking away guns from 
Americans without the constitutionally required due process of law, 
which is exactly what this bill would do. It would allow the courts to 
take guns away from people without notice and without even the right to 
appear in the hearing to defend themselves in court.

  Now, the other side is going to tell you, and you will hear in the 
argument here, hey, there is due process. Don't worry about it, they 
will say, because people subjected to this process, they can just go to 
court and they can petition to get their firearms back.
  But I will let my colleagues in on something that every first-year 
law student learns: Due process after the fact is no due process at 
all.
  Now, the other side is also going to argue here--get ready for it--
they are going to claim that they have come up with a reasonable 
compromise by just making these gun confiscation orders temporary. They 
will say it is only going to last 14 days. They won't tell you that 
these orders can be renewed indefinitely.
  My Democrat colleagues are going to tell you that this bill will save 
lives. But if you look at the objective studies, the comprehensive 
studies on this, you will find that the red flag laws in all these 
States have had no significant effect on the rates of murder, suicide, 
or the number of people killed in mass public shootings.
  If this bill passes, people may have their information added to the 
national crime databases, even though they committed no crime. In what 
version of America do we think that is okay?
  The Democrats claim Republicans don't care about gun violence. But 
while they may repeat this over and over and over, it doesn't make it 
any more true. If you look at the record, House Republicans have worked 
tirelessly to combat gun violence by enacting meaningful laws to put 
more resources into mental health, to provide training for guidance 
counselors, and fund grants for law enforcement.
  The other side, meanwhile, is actively trying to defund police. And 
just last week, they voted against giving money to schools to enhance 
security.
  Democrats refused to work with us on legislation that would actually 
do something; that would actually reduce the rate of gun violence in 
this country.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. And instead, they are taking advantage of 
tragedies. That is what they are doing. They are taking advantage of 
tragedies to promote their agenda to destroy our constitutional rights, 
and it is shameful.
  I will tell you this: When Republicans take back the majority next 
year, we will work to begin to address the root causes of the violence 
and the mayhem in our country. That day cannot come soon enough.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Georgia (Mrs. McBath), the sponsor of the bill.
  Mrs. McBATH. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of my bill, the 
Federal Extremist Protection Order Act, a bill that would empower loved 
ones and law enforcement to help prevent mass shootings before they 
happen.
  Every family in every community in our Nation deserves access to 
these lifesaving measures. No child, no parent deserves to live in fear 
of gun violence.
  And we are paying for it. We are paying for this gun violence every 
single day. Day after day, hour after hour, we are paying for the 
weapons of war on our streets with the blood of our children in our 
schools.
  We are paying for the unfettered access with mothers and fathers 
waiting in line for a DNA test, forced to find out if it is their child 
that is riddled with bullets and maimed beyond recognition; if it is 
their child whose blood now blankets the floor of the classroom where 
they should be learning math and science and English.
  We are paying for this deadly gun culture with the lives of American 
people; with the lives of those that we in this body took an oath to 
protect.
  The American people are absolutely exhausted. We cannot continue to 
be the only country in the world where we let gun violence happen again 
and again and again. An entire generation is growing up learning that 
the adults that they look up to cannot, or rather, choose not to 
protect them.
  Now, we all agree that this status quo is unacceptable. We all 
understand that the murder of our children cannot continue. We need 
policies that will give our law enforcement the tools that they need, 
the tools they have asked for to help keep guns out of the hands of 
those who are a danger to themselves or to others.
  How many more victims are we going to memorialize?
  What rights do our children have as they grow in our lives and in our 
hearts?
  Parents across the country, in every State, in every community, know 
the fear that accompanies the love that we have for our children. It is 
a primal fear, a helpless fear, a love so deep that

[[Page H5421]]

we worry and wonder every day where is my child? Are they safe? Are 
they going to make it home today?
  Don't our parents have the right to send their kids off to school 
without the fear of them not coming home?
  Don't our children have the right to live free from the trauma that 
only stepping over a friend covered in blood could ever bring?
  How many more parents must receive the phone call that I did when I 
was told that my son was murdered; the phone call that confirms that 
fear that my child is dead and that I was unable to protect him; the 
phone call that leads you to cry out to God in your grief?
  Was my child afraid? Did he feel pain as the bullets ripped through 
his skin? Did he know he was loved more than he could ever imagine?
  We can do better than that. We must be better than this. We cannot be 
the only nation in the world where our children are torn apart on 
Tuesday and their deaths are gone from the news cycle by Wednesday.
  And that is why, in the decade since my son was taken from me by a 
man with a gun, simply for playing loud music in his car, that I made a 
promise to Jordan and to my community, and to the American people, 
a promise that I would continue to fight this battle for the rest of my 
life, the fight to make sure that not one more parent is forced to join 
this ever-growing club, the club that no mother or no father ever wants 
to be a part of.

  I promised that I would take all of the devotion as a mother that I 
have for my child, all the love that I poured out of my soul into my 
child, that I would do everything in my power to keep Jordan's 
community safe; yes, you, my community; that the time would come where 
we would be able to make a difference in the lives of our children and 
our children's children, and this is that time. This is that moment.
  We are facing a challenge of our lifetime on the issue of our era.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an extra 30 
seconds.
  Mrs. McBATH. This is that time. This is that moment. We are facing 
the challenge of our lifetime. This is the issue of our era, and today, 
we must vote with the majority of American people that agree with us.
  We vote to provide law enforcement and family members the tools that 
they need to prevent these mass shootings. We vote to save lives. We 
vote to do what is right. We vote to stop the uniquely American horror 
that is ripping our families apart.
  God bless us. And I ask God to cover us in doing the right thing.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Arizona (Mrs. Lesko).

                              {time}  0930

  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I thank Representative Jordan for yielding 
time.
  I rise in opposition to H.R. 2377. I have five grandchildren. I would 
do anything--anything--to protect my five grandchildren, including, as 
a last resort, shooting someone if I had to, to protect the lives of my 
grandchildren.
  Democrat bills that we have heard this week want to take away my 
right--my right--to protect my grandchildren. They want to take away 
the rights of law-abiding citizens to protect their own children and 
grandchildren and wives and brothers and sisters. This bill takes away 
due process from law-abiding citizens.
  Can you imagine if you had a disgruntled ex or somebody who hates you 
because of your political views, and they go to a judge and say, ``Oh, 
this person is dangerous''? That judge would take away their guns, lean 
on the side of conservatism and take away their guns, without that 
person even having knowledge that there was a court hearing that would 
take away their guns. This is wrong.
  When Republicans were in the majority, we actually passed legislation 
that was signed into law that would have prevented mass shootings. 
These bills will not. We need to join together, Republicans and 
Democrats. I hope they can do it in the Senate and get something done 
that actually saves children's lives.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a June 7, 2022, 
Washington Post article titled ``No, red-flag gun laws don't violate 
due process rights.''

                       [From the Washington Post]

         No, Red-Flag Gun Laws Don't Violate Due Process Rights


such laws, also known as `extreme-risk protection orders,' are popular 
 and are embraced by some republican politicians. but some gun-rights 
    activists say they violate the fifth and fourteenth amendments.

     (Perspective by Joseph Blocher and Jake Charles, June 7, 2022)

       ``Red flag'' laws, which allow guns to be temporarily taken 
     from people who pose a risk of harm to themselves or others, 
     are one of the few gun-safety regulations that currently have 
     bipartisan support. ``Tm generally inclined to think some 
     kind of red-flag law is a good idea,'' Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) 
     said last week, after the school shooting in Uvalde, Texas. 
     Key senators have told reporters it's possible an agreement 
     could be reached this week on legislation that would include 
     a provision incentivizing more states to pass such laws.
       There is strong popular support for red-flag laws--also 
     known as extreme-risk laws--in both parties, and more than a 
     dozen states have adopted them in the past few years alone 
     (bringing the total to 19 plus the District of Columbia). 
     Social science research suggests that they work, most 
     strikingly in preventing gun suicides.
       So what prevents their wider adoption, including at the 
     federal level? Some gun-rights advocates and their allies in 
     Congress say they violate the due process clauses of the 
     Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. ``Depriving citizens of 
     Life, Liberty, or Property, without Due Process, is a clear 
     violation of our Constitution,'' Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) 
     tweeted last week. ``Every member of Congress swears an oath 
     to `support and defend' the Constitution. Voting for, or 
     introducing, Red Flag Laws is a blatant violation of that 
     oath.''
       But such criticisms are off base. Politicians considering 
     red-flag laws, whether in Congress or state legislatures, 
     should do so based on an accurate understanding of what the 
     Constitution requires. It indeed guarantees ``due process of 
     law'' whenever the government seeks to deprive a person of 
     ``life, liberty, or property.'' But the basic design of 
     existing extreme-risk laws is fully consistent with 
     constitutional commands, as we showed in a recent law review 
     article.
       In the states where they exist, here's how red-flag laws 
     work: A limited set of people--law enforcement officers, 
     family or household members, and sometimes others--can 
     petition a judge to issue an ``extreme-risk protection 
     order'' (ERPO) requiring a person to temporarily surrender 
     his or her firearms and refrain from acquiring new ones. 
     Depending on the state, the burden of proof the petitioner 
     must meet (to establish that the gun owner indeed presents a 
     risk) varies from ``probable cause'' to ``clear and 
     convincing'' evidence. If the petition is successful, the 
     court can enter a short-term emergency ERPO, usually lasting 
     two weeks or less. In many cases, that's all that is needed--
     the crisis can be averted. A longer-term ERPO can only be 
     entered after a full hearing at which the petitioner again 
     bears the burden of proof, usually at a higher threshold, and 
     at which the gun owner can contest the order.
       If there is a constitutional flaw in this basic structure, 
     it has apparently escaped notice of the entire United States 
     judiciary: Courts have unanimously rejected Second Amendment 
     and due process challenges to ERPO laws, and for good reason.
       Perhaps surprisingly, the Second Amendment has not been the 
     focus of the constitutional complaints. That's because even 
     ardent Second Amendment defenders like Justice Amy Coney 
     Barrett recognize that ``legislatures have the power to 
     prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns''--as Barrett 
     wrote in 2019 case, when she was a judge on the U.S. Court of 
     Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Courts reviewing extreme-
     risk laws have upheld them on that very basis. In 2016, for 
     example, a Connecticut appellate court relied on U.S. Supreme 
     Court precedent in holding that Connecticut's statute ``does 
     not implicate the second amendment, as it does not restrict 
     the right oflawabiding, responsible citizens to use arms in 
     defense of their homes.''
       The crux of the political debate has therefore focused on 
     due process--although due-process challenges to red-flag laws 
     have fared no better. Nor should they have. A prime complaint 
     about red-flag laws is that they allow an order to issue 
     before the gun owner has an opportunity to contest the 
     evidence, but the Supreme Court has long recognized that 
     there are ``extraordinary situations where some valid 
     governmental interest is at stake that justifies postponing 
     the hearing until after the event,'' as Justice John Marshall 
     Harlan II wrote in a 1971 case. Examples include restraining 
     orders filed by one domestic partner against another, civil 
     commitments for mental illness and the temporary removal of 
     children from parental custody in emergency situations (for 
     instance, when there are credible allegations of abuse). In 
     situations like these, delaying urgent action until after a 
     full hearing can lead to catastrophic outcomes.

[[Page H5422]]

       Given that the Constitution allows emergency action to 
     temporarily remove a person's child before a full hearing, 
     it's hard to argue that it prohibits emergency action to 
     temporarily remove a person's guns. Quite simply, the 
     Constitution does not require society to wait until the 
     trigger is pulled.
       Though they vary in their particulars, existing extreme-
     risk laws contain several important procedural safeguards 
     that the Supreme Court has recognized help to forestall abuse 
     and ensure due process. They impose the burden on the 
     petitioner to convince an independent third party; they 
     guarantee active judicial oversight and provide a prompt 
     hearing focusing on the degree of risk; and many states 
     provide specific criminal penalties for filing false or 
     harassing extreme-risk petitions (in addition to existing 
     punishments for perjury).
       Understanding constitutional requirements is important not 
     only for lawyers and judges, but for those debating gun 
     regulation in public discourse. Time and again, arguments 
     based on misunderstandings of the Constitution have been used 
     to derail reasonable gun regulation. After Sandy Hook, for 
     example, an overwhelming majority of Americans wanted to 
     expand the existing system of background checks for gun 
     sales. Of the minority opposed--some strongly so--the most 
     common reason was that doing so would violate the Second 
     Amendment, yet that position has no support in legal 
     doctrine.
       We should not once again make the mistake of blaming the 
     Constitution for inaction on gun laws. The structure of 
     extreme-risk laws is entirely consistent with not only the 
     Second Amendment but also the consitutional guarantee of due 
     process.

  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I want to excoriate as absolute nonsense, 
pernicious nonsense, what we just heard from Mr. Johnson, from Mrs. 
Lesko, and what I presume we will hear for the rest of the debate on 
this bill.
  Red flag laws are in effect in 19 States and the District of 
Columbia. Every court that has considered them has found them 
constitutional. Every court has said that they meet the requirements of 
procedural due process--every single court.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker of the House.
  Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
thank him for bringing his superior knowledge of our Constitution and 
the law of the land to bear in this important debate for the children.
  Yesterday, as we had the debate on so many other pieces of 
legislation which passed with bipartisan support, we said it was of the 
children, by the children, and for the children. ``Of them'' because 
they are suffering. ``By them'' because they are testifying in the 
Congress of the United States, apparently to no avail to some in the 
Congress, but making an emotional appeal of the facts of their case to 
the American people, and again, all of it for the children.
  The Protecting Our Kids Act, I thank the chairman for bringing that 
to the floor. The legislation passed yesterday. It has strong steps to 
save lives, whether it is raising the age to purchase weapons of war, 
outlawing bump stocks and high-capacity magazines designed for mass 
murder, cracking down on gun trafficking and ghost guns, and 
strengthening safe storage requirements, to name just a few.
  Today, the House builds on this progress by passing our Federal 
Extreme Risk Protection Order Act, another lifesaving measure aimed at 
preventing the next tragic shooting before it is too late.
  Too often, what we know is that those who pose a risk of gun violence 
show early warning signs: a menacing message online, a troubled message 
to a loved one. Yet, in too many communities across the country, 
concerned family members, friends, and law enforcement have no legal 
pathway to get deadly weapons out of the hands of these troubled 
individuals.
  Under the leadership of Congresswoman Lucy McBath, the House will 
pass a bill empowering family members and law enforcement to seek a 
Federal court order to temporarily remove access to a gun from 
individuals who pose a threat to themselves and to others.
  Thanks to the leadership of Congressman Salud Carbajal, this 
legislation will include incentives to encourage more States to adopt 
extreme risk protection order laws of their own. The incentives exist 
in many States, but not all.
  Doing so will not only protect from mass shootings but also from the 
quiet daily massacre by suicide and gun crimes. These so-called red 
flag laws by some are saving lives in the 19 States and, as was 
mentioned, the District of Columbia, where they have been enacted. The 
statistics show that.
  The American people are overwhelmingly for this lifesaving measure. 
Recent polling shows 8 in 10 Americans support it.
  Madam Speaker, as you know, and you have experienced it in your 
State, gun violence in our Nation has reached a fever pitch in recent 
weeks. People keep saying again and again and again that we have gun 
violence. I would say it is not again and again and again; it is 
always. It is not one after another; it is ongoing, whether it is mass 
murders that are high profile or every night in cities and places 
across our country.
  Sadly, too many Members think, in the wake of gun violence, a moment 
of silence is sufficient--a moment of silence. As Mr. Higgins said 
following the Buffalo massacre, we have a moment of silence, and then 
we must have action--and then we must have action.
  Today, all Members have a chance to take action, to vote for another 
strong step, giving our communities a chance to prevent the next 
massacre. The next massacre could be a family tragedy, so it is 
personal as well as community protection.
  Indeed, if you knew where and when the next gun incident would be, 
how could you oppose having the tools to possibly stop it? If you knew 
that children could possibly be exposed because of the action of 
someone practically a child themselves, still a teenager, having access 
to a weapon of war, why wouldn't you want to take action to stop it?
  I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join us in 
a strong bipartisan ``aye'' vote for this legislation. In States across 
the country, this is not partisan at all. Let's hope that it will not 
be in the House of Representatives.
  At the same time, we remain very prayerful and hopeful that the 
Senate will soon reach bipartisan agreement so that we will move a step 
closer to freeing our children from the horrors of gun violence, once 
and for all--our children, whether it is violence to them or violence 
to their parents and family members.
  For the children, of the children, by the children, that is our 
mission. I urge an ``aye'' vote.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Good).
  Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Madam Speaker, one of the most fundamental, 
God-given rights that we possess, which is uniquely protected in our 
American Constitution, is the right to keep and bear arms for self-
defense and to ensure that we remain a free people.
  We have seen under this administration, supported by the Democrat 
majority in this Congress, an unprecedented trampling on the basic 
rights of American citizens over the past 2 years. Our most precious 
freedoms to assemble together, to go where you want, to worship as you 
choose, to earn a living or operate your business, to keep your job or 
your employees, what you have to wear on your face, and whether or not 
you are required to receive a vaccine that you may not want or may not 
need all trampled upon by Democrats in power.
  Democrats simply do not believe in the inalienable rights of American 
citizens to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They believe 
that your rights come from government, and they, therefore, have the 
right to take them away.

  The guarantee provided by our Founders to ensure we remain free from 
foreign invasion and, yes, as our Founders clearly warned us, from an 
oppressive government like we see in Canada, Australia, and the 
Democrats' beloved Communist China is the constitutional right of law-
abiding citizens to be armed as they choose.
  Over and over, the Founders affirmed and reiterated that Congress has 
no power--no power--to limit the right of lawful citizens to arm 
themselves. H.R. 2377 would create a nationwide system of red flag 
laws, undermining the constitutional guarantee of due process, which is 
required before depriving any American of their Second Amendment right.
  Mrs. McBATH. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Carbajal).
  Mr. CARBAJAL. Madam Speaker, I thank Representative McBath for 
yielding time.

[[Page H5423]]

  Madam Speaker, 8 years ago, my own community of Isla Vista near UC 
Santa Barbara saw firsthand the horror and the trauma that a mass 
shooting brings. In 8 years since that attack, we have stood in 
solidarity with other communities reeling from the hundreds of mass 
shootings in our schools, our shopping malls, our houses of worship, 
and our Main Streets.
  Madam Speaker, I share the outrage and frustration of the majority of 
Americans and many of my colleagues here in Congress that there are 
some in Congress who have kept us from doing our job to protect 
children by blocking commonsense gun safety measures.
  I stand before you today as the author of a gun safety measure that 
has enjoyed bipartisan support, that has been implemented in 
Republican- and Democratic-led States alike, and that has been proven 
to reduce gun deaths and stop mass shootings before they happen. I am 
speaking about extreme risk protection orders or, as they are more 
commonly known, red flag laws.
  These laws are simple. If an individual is showing signs that they 
may be a danger to themselves or others, a police officer or a family 
member can, through due process, go to a judge and request an extreme 
risk protection order, which temporarily bars that person from owning 
or purchasing a firearm. These laws are already on the books in 19 
States and the District of Columbia, and in those places, they have 
saved lives.
  Part of the reason these laws work is because warning signs of mass 
shootings are not as rare as you might think. In fact, a U.S. study of 
school violence found that the majority of incidents come with clear 
warning signs, which we have seen before in some of our most infamous 
school shootings: Columbine, Sandy Hook, Parkland, and even Uvalde.
  That is why, in the wake of these tragedies, Republican- and 
Democratic-led States have approved red flag laws that have gone on to 
intervene in thousands of potentially violent attacks before they 
happen.
  Florida residents, for example, have used ERPOs more than 8,000 times 
since they implemented their red flag law after the Parkland shooting. 
California implemented their red flag law after the UCSB Isla Vista 
attack in my community.
  Police officers have used it to prevent numerous workplace attacks 
and other violent incidents. These red flag laws are also critical to 
reducing the largest form of gun deaths in our country, suicide by 
firearm.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mrs. McBATH. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.

                              {time}  0945

  Mr. CARBAJAL. Madam Speaker, as someone who lost one of my own 
siblings to suicide by a gun, I personally am proud to stand in this 
Chamber today in her memory, Carmen, to see my bill come to a vote.
  This measure is popular, bipartisan, and common sense. That may be 
why Republican Senators have introduced similar legislation in the 
past, to incentivize States to expand red flag laws and support States 
that already have them.
  There is no bill that we can pass that would be the panacea to solve 
our violence overnight, but with this measure and those that we passed 
yesterday, we can make a major difference. We need to do this now.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McClintock).
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, Alexis de Tocqueville said that the 
defining trait of socialism is ``a profound opposition to personal 
liberty and scorn for individual reason, a complete contempt for the 
individual.''
  Socialists are hostile to our Bill of Rights specifically because it 
protects the individual against the State by guaranteeing our most 
fundamental rights and the means to defend them, and the guarantee that 
we can't be deprived of them except through due process of law.
  You have the right to have your day in court, to face your accuser, 
to present evidence on your behalf, to contest the charges brought 
against you.
  Now, if someone is adjudged to be dangerously mentally ill, of course 
they should not have access to firearms or to any other weapons. They 
shouldn't be on the street where they can do harm at all. They should 
be confined, during the course of their illness, so they can be treated 
and not endanger themselves or others.
  We already have commitment procedures that address this in concert 
with our Constitution. In that process, you appear before a judge, you 
can know the charges, you can face your accuser, you can plead your 
case, and you can present evidence on your own behalf in open court.
  But not under this bill. Under this bill, an anonymous accuser, 
including a jilted date or an ex-roommate, can trigger a secret 
proceeding that you don't even know is happening until the police show 
up at your door to strip you of your Second Amendment right to self-
defense, and the burden then falls on you to try and restore it.
  And it won't stop here. The left has already branded speech they 
disagree with as dangerous.
  But they are right about one thing. This is an extreme risk bill. It 
is an extreme risk to our most fundamental individual rights as 
Americans.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Republican speakers obviously have more regard for their politics and 
for the National Rifle Association than they do for the lives of our 
children. We see that every moment here, when they keep repeating the 
words that this is unconstitutional, when courts in 18 States and the 
District of Columbia have found them constitutional, and Supreme Court 
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, on the 7th Circuit, said: History is 
consistent with common sense. It demonstrates that legislatures have 
the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns.
  So I don't think we should hear lectures on Democrats don't care 
about due process. We do. We also care about children's lives.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island 
(Mr. Cicilline), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
Federal Extreme Risk Protection Order Act. Before the Emanuel church 
shooting, before the Uvalde, El Paso, and Parkland shootings and so 
many others, shooters showed warning signs or even flat out said what 
they were going to do.
  Before many die by suicide by gun, they show warning signs that they 
may be a danger to themselves.
  In these situations, there is often evidence that something terrible 
is going to happen. We know it, we can even articulate it, but we are 
often powerless to stop it.
  This bill remedies this situation. This bill would help prevent 
individuals who pose an imminent threat to themselves or others from 
accessing firearms, by allowing law enforcement and family members to 
file a court petition in Federal court to temporarily--temporarily--
block dangerous individuals' access to guns.
  Despite the claim that this bill invades due process, this is 
absolutely false. It is a thinly veiled attempt to prevent any and all 
regulations of firearms in this country. As the chairman has said, it 
has been found constitutional. There is a hearing before the seizure 
with a judge, with witnesses, testimony under oath, affidavits. The 
judge makes a finding. It happens all the time in domestic violence 
cases.
  These guns can only be taken away for a temporary period after a 
hearing with a judge, who determines on balance that it is necessary to 
do so for the safety of the gun owner or the community.
  This bill is so common sense. It has historically been bipartisan. 
The last Republican President supported it, introduced by Senator 
Lindsey Graham in the Senate.
  I thank Congresswoman McBath. Our Republican colleagues this morning 
have been talking about their passion for the Second Amendment, their 
devotion to the right to bear arms. If only for a moment they showed 
the same devotion, the same commitment to preserving the life of young 
people, the right to live a life free from gun violence, to go to a 
movie theater or church or synagogue and not worry

[[Page H5424]]

about their life and their liberty because they are gunned down by 
someone who shouldn't have a firearm.
  This is absolutely the most commonsense proposal that will come 
before Congress on guns. Keep them out of the hands of people who are 
dangerous to themselves and others. For God's sake, vote for this bill.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Gaetz).
  Mr. GAETZ. Madam Speaker, if House Democrats were so worried about 
violence, they wouldn't open the borders, open the prisons, and then 
disarm law-abiding Americans who want to protect themselves and protect 
their families.
  Chairman Nadler says that Republicans shouldn't lecture about 
constitutional rights, but it was the last Democrat speaker, Mr. 
Cicilline, who in the House Judiciary Committee said, Spare me the 
bullshit about constitutional rights. So pardon us for standing up for 
the Constitution and the very due process that ensures that we are able 
to have a civil, functioning society in this country.
  Speaker Pelosi asks the question: Well, if you knew when the next act 
of violence would be, why wouldn't you want to stop it? What is this, 
the United States Congress, or the plot for the movie ``Minority 
Report''?
  The best you could ever hope to have in terms of warning is what we 
had in the Parkland case, where a neighbor saw Nikolas Cruz preparing 
for a school shooting, called the FBI, and because they were so focused 
on the bureaucracy, they didn't take action.
  That is why I am against federalizing the regular police and it is 
why I am against federalizing the school police, because the more the 
FBI was involved, the more they botched the case, and maybe there are 
people dead who didn't need to be.
  These red flag laws violate our Second Amendment rights, our Fifth 
Amendment rights, and when they are done at the national level, they 
violate our Tenth Amendment rights. It is crazy that we are considering 
legislation to bribe the States to take rights away from our fellow 
Americans, and it is nuts that Republicans in the Senate, the very 
Republicans who say they are the classic, liberty-minded conservatives, 
they are now working with Democrats on this very endeavor to Federalize 
the school police and to engage in this bribery for the sake of 
deprivation of rights.
  Let me give you this warning, my friends: It is no victory, as Mr. 
Carbajal said, that in my beloved Florida we have used red flag laws 
8,000 times. There weren't 8,000 school shooters we stopped, probably 
not even 8,000 criminals.
  What we do see is that these red flag laws are used in divorce 
proceedings, they are used in every type of dispute and shouldn't be a 
cudgel that way. We will stand up for their rights. That is no 
bullshit; we will.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded not to use profanity on 
the floor of the House of Representatives.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), a member of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, since the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, 
about 10 years ago, we have not enacted any substantive firearm 
restrictions to prevent children from being slaughtered in our schools.
  In fact, not since the massacre of first graders and their educators 
at Sandy Hook, but in the 20 years since the shooting at Columbine, we 
have not enacted any new meaningful restrictions on firearms.
  We have an obligation to protect our constituents, and we have a 
responsibility to keep the American people safe.
  After each of these instances, we hear from our friends across the 
aisle that we must address mental health. I agree. But we must prevent 
those who are intent on harming themselves or others from having access 
to dangerous weapons and carrying out their intent.
  That is why I support this thoughtful proposal balancing public 
safety and the individual's right to due process.
  Let's just take the massacre in Uvalde. Should there have been a law 
in place in Texas, a red flag law, perhaps the gunman could have been 
stopped. There were plenty of warning signs, including the gunman with 
pictures of a cat he had killed and his frequent online threats to teen 
girls.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, 
and Civil Liberties, I take the due process clause seriously. In this 
legislation, a court would need to make an individualized 
determination, looking at specific facts before issuing an order. A 
full hearing is required in 72 hours, where the party can have personal 
attendance and object.
  This legislation is absolutely necessary, and I urge all my 
colleagues to support it. We have a moral obligation to act.
  Yesterday, this body, with a bipartisan vote, adopted the Protecting 
Our Kids Act, which would make meaningful updates to our Nation's gun 
laws. We must go further, I believe, and reenact the assault weapons 
bans.
  These bills would make a meaningful difference in gun violence in the 
United States and save American lives. God would not look kindly upon 
the use of weapons to kill his children, as happened in Uvalde, Texas.
  Our votes are not political calculations; they are obligations. We 
have a duty to protect God's children.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Michigan (Mrs. McClain).
  Mrs. McCLAIN. Madam Speaker, I think what we need, again, is a little 
truth, transparency, and consistency.
  I will share, as a mother of four, I resent the fact that you tell me 
that I don't care about children. In fact, when you have soft-on-crime 
policies, I need my Second Amendment right to protect my own children 
because the soft-on-crime policies don't help.
  During these debates, on these unconstitutional--you know the thing 
we all took an oath to uphold--gun bills, the Democrats have been 
making the claim, well, if you can't buy alcohol or cigarettes, you 
shouldn't be able to buy an AR-15.
  All right. Let's stick with that concept. Here is a concept: Apply it 
throughout every form. But let's talk about a couple of things that the 
Democrats feel you are mature enough to do under the age of 18. 
Because, once again, their standards clearly aren't consistent. What a 
concept, to be consistent.
  Democrats believe that under the age of 18, you should be able to get 
an abortion. While you are at it, don't even talk to your parents about 
it.

  Under the age of 18, Democrats think you should be able to change 
your sex without notifying parents.
  At 18, you can vote.
  At 18, you can join the military and lay your life on the line for 
this country.
  And I bet they think that the 18-year-old Buffalo shooter is actually 
mature enough to be charged as an adult, right?
  So, again, let's have some consistency in our standards.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Ms. DEAN. Madam Speaker, do we not hear the cries of the fourth 
grader in Uvalde who said, ``All of my friends are dead''?
  Would you like to do something about gun slaughter in this country? 
Then join us.
  One commonsense way we can do this is by passing my friend and 
colleague, Congresswoman McBath's, Federal Extreme Risk Protection 
Order Act, red flag laws.
  We know that in 46 percent of shootings, the attacker expressed 
interest in harming others. There was a cry for help, a warning. 
Someone knew that violence could erupt. Someone had the ability to 
intervene. We have a responsibility to intervene.
  Representative McBath's bill would do just that, intervene when 
someone is a risk to themselves or others. We do not have to live this 
way. Fearful for our children at school, at movies, the grocery store, 
or the TLA on South Street in Philadelphia.
  We do not have to live this way, and we don't want to: 79 percent of 
Americans support red flag laws and 67 percent of gun owners.
  Stop sentencing our children to having to lament that all of their 
friends are dead.

[[Page H5425]]

  


                              {time}  1000

  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup).
  Mr. WENSTRUP. Madam Speaker, next week will mark 5 years since the 
fateful morning on the baseball field where 136 rounds were fired in an 
attack on Republicans. Only by the grace of God were 20 or more of my 
Republican colleagues and staff not killed by a crazed terrorist 
wielding guns on that baseball field. So this is not a theoretical 
exercise for many of us on this side of the aisle.
  I say this not to take away from the tragedies that any one of us has 
experienced, but to highlight the good people on both sides of this 
issue can bring our personal experiences to the debate and may see 
things differently, while both condemning violence and wanting to act.
  When I reflect on that day, it is not about the weapon. It is about 
the person, the evil person that is on the other side of that weapon. 
It was guns that stopped that killer--two undercover Capitol police 
officers. They were only there because   Steve Scalise was there. And 
he got hit. Otherwise, that terrorist could have easily assassinated 20 
to 30 Members of Congress and staff.
  Clearly, there are people I don't want to have a gun in their hands 
but we can't ignore the hate, the evil that is gripping too many in our 
country today. We have laws against murder. Yet, we see murder.
  If my little daughter hits her big brother, I want to know why. I 
don't blame the stick in her hand. As a physician, common sense tells 
me that if we don't look at the events in someone's life that lead to 
the thoughts and the feelings that then lead to this horrific murderous 
behavior, then we are doing our society a grave injustice. And that is 
what is happening. We have seen this movie before.
  Did these laws change the disturbing trends that we are seeing? 
Previous bans have made no difference. It has been proven. Many of our 
communities have gun laws and have even more homicides than ever.
  We as Americans need to do some serious soul-searching about 
ourselves because something serious has changed in our society over the 
last several decades.
  Is it the absence of God?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. WENSTRUP. Madam Speaker, we had a public school in my district 
that was forced by the left and the courts to take down ``thou shalt 
not kill'' from in front of the schools.
  Is it the breakdown of the family, the disruption of the community, 
the implosion of the village? Or is it the destruction of our mental 
health system, which, unfortunately, turned everyone onto the streets 
instead of reforming our institutions?
  It could be all these things and many more, but until America is 
willing to take a long, hard look at ourselves and heal what truly ails 
us, I fear we are simply doomed to repeat what we have done in the past 
and we are doing here today.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), chairman of the Gun Violence 
Prevention Task Force.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation and thank 
Congresswoman McBath and Congressman Carbajal for the great work they 
have done to put this together.
  Red flag laws are supported by a majority of Americans and nearly 70 
percent of gun owners. Red flag laws provide an opportunity for an 
intervention if someone demonstrates that they are a danger to 
themselves or to others. California's red flag laws have been used 21 
times to prevent mass shootings.
  The bill we are considering today was originally authored by Senator 
Lindsey Graham, a Republican, and is very similar to the Florida red 
flag bill that was signed by then-Governor Rick Scott, also a 
Republican, and today a U.S. Senator. Neither of those two have ever 
been accused of being antigun or anti-Constitution.
  We know red flag laws save lives and we know the issues raised by the 
other side of the aisle are a stretch at best. If someone files a false 
complaint, they are subject to a $5,000 fine and 5 years in jail. This 
bill will save lives, and I urge you to vote ``yes.''
  The only real question is how much more bloodshed is needed to spur 
us to do the right thing and help us keep our kids and our communities 
safe.
  Please vote ``yes'' on this bill.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Davidson).
  Mr. DAVIDSON. Madam Speaker, from the debate and from the whole 
premise of this red flag law proposal, you would think that there was 
no such way to deal with this problem in America. It has been pointed 
out that 19 States have red flag laws already, but there are 50 States 
that already have a way to have someone adjudicated minimally 
dangerous.
  Every single State, the premise that we can identify somebody who 
might pose a risk to themselves or others is the whole premise why red 
flag laws might work. But that is the same premise that allows Baker 
Acts to work in every single State and Washington, D.C.
  The difference is that the person charged, the person accused of 
being this mentally incompetent, mentally dangerous person, has the 
right to confront their accuser. And that is what they are trying to 
undo. It already exists in law. Everyone knows that we cannot accept 
our children being murdered. We can't accept our communities being 
destroyed and gutted, not just by violence, by increasing violence, by 
increasing acts of despair; not just shootings, but suicides--and the 
number one cause of death for 18- to 45-year-olds--fatal overdoses.
  There is something going on wrong. It is not the guns, it is the 
culture and the evildoer. When do we stop blaming the evildoer, the 
doer of evil deeds? And if you could identify who that doer of evil 
deeds might be, wouldn't you want to take them away from the weapons 
instead of taking the weapons away from them?

  If you don't take the person away, they can get other guns. They 
might even get a car and drive through a parade.
  Let's keep our communities safe. Let's keep our kids safe. Let's 
focus on the real problem and not just run the same play over and over 
again. The Democrats have a preconceived solution to every emergency, 
and it is shameful to watch this exploitation of violence to achieve a 
Democrat-longstanding objective to undermine our Second Amendment.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).
  Mr. BEYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for H.R. 
2377, the Federal Extreme Risk Protection Order Act. Included in this 
legislation, is the Extreme Risk Protection Order Act, which I have 
been proud to co- lead for many years with my friend and colleague, 
Congressman Carbajal.
  Madam Speaker, April 16, 2007, 15 years ago, 32 Virginia Tech 
students, in my home and Commonwealth, were killed by a young man who 
was well-known to the community to have paranoid schizophrenia. He had 
been hospitalized. He had been picked up by the police. He had been 
banned from classes. There was every reason in the world for him to be 
on the background checklist. Yet, he was able to buy the weapons 
legally that killed those 32 kids.
  In 2014, I had a long conversation with a friend who was deeply 
depressed. He was having trouble getting out of bed, trouble finding a 
psychiatrist who would treat him. I made some calls to try to find 
somebody, and then didn't do anything but worry, and was stunned when 
he got out of bed to go buy a gun and kill himself.
  To this day, I so regret that I did not call his wife, and we went 
together to the court to get him on the background checklist. We have 
all lost too many friends. We all are grief-struck by the massacre of 
children.
  Red flag laws may not protect everyone, but it will save many lives 
and it is a start.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Biggs).
  Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, do you ever wonder how many of our 
colleagues in the Democrat aisle receive

[[Page H5426]]

Bloomberg money to advocate for taking away Americans' Second Amendment 
rights? I do.
  You hear about the NRA. You sure don't want to confess the Bloomberg 
donations that you receive as you emasculate America's rights. Yet, we 
hear about your polling. But you know what, 6 in 10 Americans, 
including almost half of Democrats, support armed officers and leaders 
at schools to protect their children. Democrats oppose that.
  We hear about due process. Due process doesn't mean you have an ex-
parte hearing by an undisclosed informant who comes in and says, Look, 
we think this person is a danger to themselves or others, when the 
undisclosed informant has a grudge or an axe to grind. That is why you 
have 8,000 of those in Florida.
  Due process doesn't mean we take away your rights and then you get to 
petition to have those rights reinstated. No, this bill is designed 
specifically to get around the laws that are present in 50 States that 
do address due process and do address people who are a danger to 
themselves and society. This bill is ripe for abuse.
  Some States have enacted similar laws. In Connecticut, for example, 
nearly a third of all ex-parte orders are overturned once a judge hears 
both sides of the story.
  And why is that? You have already taken away their rights. But almost 
a third of them are overturned.
  In a markup last week, there was some confusion as to what due 
process means. It does not mean that you can deprive an individual of 
their rights first and then later let them have a hearing to reinstate 
those rights. But that is what this bill does. Deprivation first, a 
hearing later.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, and still I rise. I rise today to 
address the indication that what we Democrats are doing is meaningless.
  Meaningless to ban bump stocks. Well, tell that to the 60 people who 
were murdered at the Mandalay hotel where a gunman fired more than a 
thousand rounds in short order.
  Meaningless to raise the age to 21 to purchase an assault weapon. 
Explain that the ghosts of the 10 people who were killed at Tops 
grocery store. Make it clear to those 19 babies who were murdered at an 
elementary school in Texas.
  Meaningless? Tell that to the lives of those that have been lost. No, 
it is not meaningless.
  Madam Speaker, I tell my dear friends that what we are doing right 
now is more than common sense. It is just good sense to prevent people 
from killing other people.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Georgia (Mrs. Greene).
  Mrs. GREENE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, well, we don't agree on much 
these days here in Congress but I know there is one thing we all agree 
on. We all agree that we really like guns. See, we are the special 
privileged elites. We are the ones in this Chamber being protected by 
guns while the American people don't have men and women with guns 
outside their homes. Of course, not at any gun-free school zone they 
are not protected, nor at work.
  But here at Congress, the same Congress that is voting to send just 
millions and millions of dollars worth of guns to Ukraine so that they 
can defend themselves is the same Congress working as hard as possible 
to take away the Second Amendment rights from Americans. You see, our 
job here is to protect rights like due process and the Second Amendment 
rights of Americans, not strip them away.

  Red flag gun laws violate Americans' due process rights and this is 
the type of thing that we shouldn't be passing in this Congress, 
especially while we enjoy the very privileged elite special protection 
of guns.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on 
each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 6\1/2\ 
minutes. The gentleman from Ohio has 11 minutes.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence).
  Mrs. LAWRENCE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to make an urgent plea for 
action.
  How can we listen to an 11-year-old girl talk about smearing herself 
with her own dead friend's blood so she doesn't get killed and think 
that the appropriate response is thoughts and prayers. It is 
unacceptable.
  We have the power to make real change and end gun violence. Right 
now, the American people are calling on us to protect their kids, their 
family, and their community. I am not going to sit on the sidelines and 
neither should this legislative body. If not now, when? Every Member 
should support commonsense gun safety legislation. Not taking away your 
right to own a gun or your constitutional right, but use common sense, 
that, as my grandmother used to say, is not very common today.
  Madam Speaker, the people of America are counting on us. Act now.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
Madam Speaker, we have heard time and time again that the Democrats say 
this is not a violation of due process; not a violation of our 
constitutional rights. It most certainly is.
  Remember the basics here. Someone doesn't like you. They file a 
complaint. There is a hearing within 24 hours, a hearing that you are 
not allowed to attend, you are not allowed to be there to face your 
accusers. The government takes your gun or guns. Several days later 
there is a real hearing--well, a real hearing with a lower standard. 
The burden of proof for the government is not beyond a reasonable doubt 
to deny you your constitutional right. It is a clear and convincing 
standard. So a lower standard to take away your fundamental liberty 
when you didn't commit any crime. If that is not a violation of due 
process, I do not know what is.

                              {time}  1015

  Title I of this bill, it will all be administered by the Biden 
administration Department of Justice, the same Department of Justice 
that got a letter from a leftwing political organization and, 5 days 
later, sent a memorandum to every single U.S. attorney in this country 
saying this: Set up a dedicated line of threat communication on 
parents; use counterterrorism measures against moms and dads who had 
the nerve to show up at a school board meeting and speak up for their 
kid.
  Then, 16 days after that memorandum went out, the FBI sends an email 
out and says: Put a threat tag, a designation, a label, on moms and 
dads who did show up at school board meetings who someone filed a 
complaint about on that snitch line, and investigate them. That same 
Biden administration Justice Department will be administering this law.
  That is why we are so against this measure and why it is so darn 
dangerous. They can say all day long it doesn't violate due process; it 
most certainly does, and it is going to be administered by a Justice 
Department that has already proven they are willing to go after parents 
who speak up for their kids.
  That is why this bill is so terrible, why Republican Senators are 
pushing this and, as Mr. Gaetz from Florida said, trying to bribe 
States to implement this when we have the history of the Biden Justice 
Department and know what this thing is going to look like and how it is 
going to violate due process. That is what is wrong with this 
legislation and why Republicans are so darn against this thing.
  I hope they will come to their senses, stand up for the law-abiding 
American citizens and their fundamental liberties, and vote this thing 
down.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding, 
and let me personally on this floor--I have said it many times--offer 
my sympathy to Lucy McBath for the pain that she continues to live with 
for the loss of her son.
  Let me say to my friends, your arguments could not be more absurd. 
Over these last 2 days, I have heard welfare

[[Page H5427]]

state; I am a person of faith as all who profess such, challenging 
whether or not we have faith; speaking about the absurdity of not 
understanding the Constitution; disrespecting the democratic system 
that we have; that there will be an outrageous attack on individuals 
with the red flag laws.
  You are just simply wrong. My plea is to the American people because 
you can force people who masquerade as believing that it is a shame for 
children to die, but yet do nothing. This is the side of doing 
absolutely nothing but casting aspersions and challenging what is 
right.
  Red flag laws are right. Why? Indiana passed it in 2005, and in years 
since, the State's firearms suicide rate has gone down 7.5 percent. 
They work. A little boy, 16 years old, in New York was getting ready to 
shoot up his students, had shotguns at home. An order was put forward, 
and he admitted that not having the guns in the home was helpful and 
the order helped him.
  Is there no desire to do something in the name of those who died 
wrongly in Buffalo? Is there no desire?
  Are you not in any way aware of Zaire, a mother's child trying to 
work in a job and was severely injured?
  Are you not aware of Amerie, 10 years old, who died and bled out as 
she called 911?
  Madam Speaker, I include in the Record two lists of victims from the 
Uvalde school shooting and the Buffalo supermarket shooting.

              the 21 victims of the uvalde school shooting

       Makenna Lee Elrod, 10;
       Layla Salazar, 11;
       Maranda Mathis, 11;
       Nevaeh Bravo, 10;
       Jose Manuel Flores Jr., 10;
        Xavier Lopez, 10;
       Tess Marie Mata, 10;
       Rojelio Torres, 10;
       Eliahna ``Ellie'' Amyah Garcia, 9;
       Eliahna A. Torres, 10;
       Annabell Guadalupe Rodriguez, 10;
       Jackie Cazares, 9;
       Uziyah Garcia;, 9;
       Jayce Carmelo Luevanos, 10;
       Maite Yuleana Rodriguez, 10;
       Jailah Nicole Silguero, 10 ;
       Irma Garcia, 48;
       Eva Mireles, 44;
       Amerie Jo Garza, 10;
       Alexandria ``Lexi'' Aniyah Rubio, 10; and
       Alithia Ramirez, 10.


                  the 10 people killed in buffalo, ny

       Roberta A. Drury of Buffalo, N.Y., age 32;
       Margus D. Morrison of Buffalo, N.Y., age 52;
       Andre Mackneil of Auburn, N.Y., age 53;
       Aaron Salter of Lockport, N.Y, age 55;
       Geraldine Talley of Buffalo, N.Y., age 62;
       Celestine Chaney of Buffalo, N.Y., age 65;
       Heyward Patterson of Buffalo, N.Y., age 67;
       Katherine Massey of Buffalo, N.Y., age 72;
       Pearl Young of Buffalo, N.Y., age 77; and
       Ruth Whitfield of Buffalo, N.Y., age 86.

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Are you not aware that 80 percent of people 
considering suicide give some sign of their plans, and nearly 80 
percent of perpetrators of mass violence in public places make explicit 
threats?
  Red flag laws are crucial to saving lives.
  Yes, the FBI didn't act in Parkland, but a red flag law that was 
implemented by a Republican Governor could have been effective. There 
would have been another tool.
  The Constitution, for some people, they can't seem to read it 
clearly. The Second Amendment says to create a militia, but Justice 
Scalia, who is idolized by the right, made it very clear that the 
Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and 
carry any weapon whatsoever.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, let me say this: Do you want guns in 
the hands of dangerous people?
  I don't want Republicans shot. That was a dangerous person.
  Do you want guns in the hands of gang members? Do you want us to 
continue like all of these school shootings in the State of Texas?
  Let us realize where your heart is and ensure that the mentally ill 
are not the persons that are the ones that are most dangerous, but it 
is dangerous people who need red flag laws.
  Maybe we need to sit down in the name of John Lewis, who said: Where 
is your heart, and where is your soul?
  We need to pass this red flag law and all of our gun safety laws, and 
the Senate should pass it as well.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2377, the ``Federal Extreme 
Risk Protection Order Act of 2021,'' of which I am a cosponsor.
  In recent weeks, we have mourned the loss of life resulting from an 
ever-increasing number of mass shootings that have shocked the 
conscience of our nation.
  We have a duty to do all we can to prevent gun violence and end the 
bloodshed. Expanding the availability of extreme risk protection orders 
is one step we must take because access to firearms can be the 
difference between life or death--for one person or many.
  These laws have proven to be effective, particularly in reducing 
suicides, which involve firearms more than 50 percent of the time.
  We know that suicides are often times an impulsive action. Extreme 
risk protection orders can generate time and space between the impulse 
and someone's access o firearms.
  Recognizing that up to 80 percent of people considering suicide give 
some sign of their plans and nearly 80 percent of perpetrators of mass 
violence in public places make explicit threats or behave in a manner 
indicative of their intent to carry out an attack, it is clear these 
orders can help save lives.
  Yet under federal law, a person suffering from mental illness is 
generally not prohibited from purchasing or possessing a firearm unless 
certain statutory circumstances occur.
  Similarly, a person who has committed a violent act towards others is 
generally not prohibited from accessing firearms under federal law 
unless they are the subject of a domestic violence restraining order, 
have been convicted of a felony, or have been convicted of a domestic 
violence misdemeanor.
  In many instances of gun violence, family and friends noticed warning 
signs that their loved ones were a significant risk of harm or injury 
to themselves or others.
  For example, more than a month before the Parkland shooting, someone 
close to the shooter provided information to the FBI's tip line about 
his gun ownership, desire to kill people, erratic behavior, and 
disturbing social media posts, as well as the possibility he might 
commit a school shooting. But there was nothing to prohibit him from 
possessing firearms.
  Extreme risk protection laws empower those close to people at risk of 
committing irreversible, hateful acts upon themselves or others to 
intervene before tragedy strikes.
  Instead of focusing primarily on those who suffer from mental 
illness--the majority of whom are not violent--these laws focus on 
preventing access to firearms by people who exhibit dangerous 
behaviors.
  While some states have enacted these laws, including Florida 
following the Parkland shooting, many have not. That is why we need 
H.R. 2377. Everyone deserves to be safe from gun violence.
  This bill would provide nationwide access to extreme risk protection 
orders through federal courts, improve implementation of existing state 
extreme risk laws, and through grant funding, encourage more states to 
adopt such laws.
  It would also ensure law enforcement is trained in the use of extreme 
risk protection orders, including crisis intervention and making 
referrals to social service providers.
  When a concerned loved one can demonstrate that an individual 
presents a serious threat of injury to themselves or others, they 
should have an opportunity to request an order, allowing a judge to 
weigh the evidence and issue an order when appropriate.
  This bill would also provide important due process protections 
including notice, an opportunity to be heard at a hearing within 72 
hours after an order is issued if there is a request for a long-term 
extreme risk protection order, and a right to counsel.
  If an order is dissolved or expires any firearms would have to be 
returned.
  And the bill would establish a penalty for anyone who files a false 
or frivolous petition.
  I recently read that 44 percent of Republicans believe mass shootings 
are ``something we have to accept as part of a free society,'' and I 
simply cannot and will not accept that.
  We must never concede defeat to the epidemic of gun violence. 
Instead, we must continue to encourage and support the implementation 
of evidence-based solutions like extreme risk protection orders.
  I would like to thank Representative Lucy McBath and Salud Carbajal 
for their dedication to this issue and this bill.
  I urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation that will 
make our communities safer, whether in our homes or on our streets.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their 
comments to the Chair.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, the Fifth Amendment 
states: ``Nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due 
process of law.''
  It is the paradox of the American experience that so many who swear 
to

[[Page H5428]]

preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, the supreme law 
enshrining our fundamental rights, are so often predisposed to strip 
those rights, always with noble motive.
  Weeks ago, the Biden Department of Homeland Security formed a 
Disinformation Governance Board to become the arbiter of right think, 
even since disbanded. Bad idea.
  In 2020, State Governors ordered the healthy to stay out of their 
churches for fear of the virus. Do you remember?
  In 1971, the Department of Justice obtained a TRO, a prior restraint, 
to abridge freedom of the press by forbidding The New York Times to 
continue publishing the Pentagon Papers. Lower courts approved that, 
too.
  In February 1942, another progressive Democrat, FDR, issued an 
executive order to intern U.S. citizens and residents of Japanese 
descent. It was greatly popular; 60 percent of Americans polled 
supported sending their fellow American citizens to concentration 
camps. It was approved not just by lower courts but by the United 
States Supreme Court in Korematsu, 1944. It took until 2018 for it to 
be repudiated. Look again at what you justified.
  The long-existing Baker Act provides due process. New York had a red 
flag law and did not detect the Buffalo shooter.
  The fierce urgency of now meets the protections of fundamental rights 
in the United States Constitution, and they must be vindicated.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Roy).
  Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding.
  The gentlewoman from Texas asked: Do we want guns in the hand of 
dangerous people? The answer to that question is, of course not. But 
the question, the only question that matters, is, who constitutes a 
dangerous person? Who gets to decide, and why? That is the important 
part here. That is what we are talking about when we talk about due 
process.
  We have laws on the books in, I believe, every State in the Union, 
so-called Baker Act provisions to civilly commit persons who are a 
danger to themselves and others.
  We have such a law in Texas, but we didn't use it. We didn't use it 
against a young man who wasn't in school, was harming defenseless 
animals, was talking about raping women, was clearly not well. We 
didn't use it.
  There are more people killed in the United States by hands and knives 
than rifles. I don't want a crazy guy in my school with or without the 
ability to have a weapon.
  We should actually be serious about committing people who have mental 
health problems. That would actually solve the problem.
  Everything we are doing here today is a pretext. It is a pretext for 
targeting, confiscating, and eliminating our ability to have weapons.
  When people say things, it is a good idea to believe them.
  President Biden: `` . . . whether it is a 9-millimeter pistol or 
whether it is a rifle is ridiculous. I am continuing to push to 
eliminate the sale of those things.''
  Representative Mondaire Jones: ``If the filibuster obstructs us, we 
will abolish it. If the Supreme Court objects, we will expand it. . . . 
We will do whatever it takes.''
  Representative Ocasio-Cortez: Ban semiautomatics.
  House Democrats just yesterday tweeted: ``Semiautomatic rifles are 
weapons of war.''
  Future Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was applauding the New Zealand 
Prime Minister's commencement speech about New Zealand's banning 
semiautomatic rifles.
  Representative Beto O'Rourke: ``Hell, yes, we are going to take your 
AR-15.''
  Even Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, the gentlewoman from Texas: 
``I have held an AR-15 in my hand. I wish I hadn't.'' She talks about a 
.50-caliber bullet, which isn't even true.
  This is a pretext, and we should oppose this.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Massie).
  Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Everyone wants to stop mass public shooters, but we haven't 
previously punished people merely on the basis of a hunch, and we 
shouldn't start now.
  Stopping future crimes doesn't work in the movies, and it doesn't 
work in real life. What can work is providing mental healthcare and 
counseling to those who need it.
  If people truly pose a clear danger to themselves or others, they 
should be confined to a mental health facility. Simply denying them the 
legal right to buy a gun isn't a serious remedy.
  Actually, it is already possible to take a dangerous person's guns 
away, but Democrats are completely ignoring involuntary commitment laws 
that are on the books in all 50 States, presently known as the Baker 
Act in Florida or the 5150 code in California. These laws are different 
than the ones that are proposed today in one very important aspect: 
They involve due process.
  What is the difference? In the existing involuntary commitment laws, 
known as the Baker Act, there is a mental healthcare expert involved; 
there is no such thing in the red flag laws. There is the ability to 
challenge your accuser to have a day in court before your rights are 
deprived; there is no such opportunity in the red flag laws. You get an 
attorney appointed to you if you can't afford it; no such thing in the 
red flag laws in many of the States. There are predawn raids that 
endanger the lives, not just of the person we are worried about but of 
the officers who are tasked with carrying out the raid.

  Red flag laws could actually increase the rate of homicide and 
suicide. Simply talking to other people about your healthcare issues 
and your mental health could help you overcome it, but people will be 
reluctant to do that if red flag laws are in place.
  Red flag laws have already created thousands of second-class citizens 
who no longer have the ability to purchase a firearm for defense in the 
States that have red flag laws. If this passes today, there will be 
millions of second-class citizens created in this country who have been 
deprived of due process and the Second Amendment.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Pfluger).
  Mr. PFLUGER. Madam Speaker, I rise today as a Texan, a father of 
three young girls who go to school, and a defender of constitutional 
rights. This is not just about doing something; this is about doing 
something that matters.
  The horror of the school shootings is an unforgivable tragedy due to 
the evil we see in people.
  There is room for bipartisan solutions. Unfortunately, Democrats 
don't want to make law; they want to make politics.
  Republicans offered an alternative, a bill that would fund school 
resource officers and mental health counselors, close gaps in security, 
and strengthen active shooter preparations, with all the costs being 
offset by the unused COVID funds. Unfortunately, this has been blocked 
by House Democrats.
  There is nothing more important than ensuring our children are safe. 
I know this because I take my children to school and drop them off and 
pick them up. But in no way are the recent tragedies justification for 
an infringement upon the rights of law-abiding Americans.
  I won't support legislation that infringes upon those rights being 
stripped without due process. This is an emotional issue, but it is our 
job to step back and have an adult conversation.

                              {time}  1030

  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Issa).
  Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, to say I yield myself such time as I may 
consume is too short to recap these 2 days of the assault on the Second 
Amendment.
  I will only say, in closing, that it might seem reasonable in this 
bill--these five or six or seven different bills cobbled together--it 
might seem reasonable that each of them makes sense.

[[Page H5429]]

  I ask you, when we changed the Constitution to give an 18-year-old 
the right to vote, if we simply said today that we have changed our 
mind, we want to make it 21, don't worry about the Constitution. 
Wouldn't there be people saying that is ridiculous? Of course, they 
would.
  If we said the First Amendment gives you a right that should not be 
abridged, and suddenly we say, but we are going to have prior restraint 
because you might do or say something wrong, we would say that is 
ridiculous.
  Madam Speaker, today this affront on the Second Amendment is, in 
fact, ridiculous. Each piece may seem reasonable, but not in light of 
the significance of something enshrined in our Constitution, which is 
being systematically attacked by the other side.
  Today, we are defending the Second Amendment in a way we have not had 
to in a generation. We stand here not because there aren't some 
elements that seem reasonable in this legislation, but because at the 
end of the day, our friends on the other side of the aisle who are not 
willing to support laws that are on the books being enforced and are 
not willing to stand behind the law enforcement community that would 
like to enforce those, they are affronting and trying to undo the 
Second Amendment without a constitutional change.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, extreme risk laws save lives, it is that simple. 
Ultimately, that is what this debate should be about--saving lives. 
This legislation strikes a proper balance between protecting the due 
process rights of people in crisis and preventing tragedy by ensuring 
that those who pose an imminent danger to themselves or others do not 
have access to firearms.
  Madam Speaker, this debate has been surreal. Every court that has 
considered the question has concluded that red flag laws afford proper 
due process and are constitutional. We already know that extreme risk 
laws work, but less than half the States have those laws in effect.
  Madam Speaker, let us pass this legislation today, so we can bring 
access to this life-savings tool nationwide. We know it is not enough. 
We know we need all the provisions of the bill we passed yesterday, and 
we should bring back the assault weapons ban. But what we cannot do 
should not block us from doing what we can do. We can save thousands of 
lives annually, so let us begin.
  Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to support this bill, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The previous question is ordered on the 
bill, as amended.
  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 passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224, 
nays 202, not voting 2, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 255]

                               YEAS--224

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Auchincloss
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bourdeaux
     Bowman
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown (MD)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownley
     Bush
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Carter (LA)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Cherfilus-McCormick
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Davids (KS)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Fitzpatrick
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel, Lois
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Harder (CA)
     Hayes
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jacobs (CA)
     Jacobs (NY)
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Jones
     Kahele
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim (NJ)
     Kind
     Kinzinger
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Leger Fernandez
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lieu
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Manning
     Matsui
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mfume
     Moore (WI)
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mrvan
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Newman
     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)
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stansbury
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Strickland
     Suozzi
     Swalwell
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres (NY)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Upton
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams (GA)
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--202

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bentz
     Bergman
     Bice (OK)
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Boebert
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Carey
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cawthorn
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Cole
     Comer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donalds
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ellzey
     Emmer
     Estes
     Fallon
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     Fischbach
     Fleischmann
     Foxx
     Franklin, C. Scott
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garbarino
     Garcia (CA)
     Gibbs
     Gimenez
     Gohmert
     Golden
     Gonzales, Tony
     Good (VA)
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Greene (GA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hartzler
     Hern
     Herrell
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Hinson
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Issa
     Jackson
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kim (CA)
     Kustoff
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Lesko
     Letlow
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Mace
     Malliotakis
     Mann
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClain
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meijer
     Meuser
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (WV)
     Miller-Meeks
     Moolenaar
     Mooney
     Moore (AL)
     Moore (UT)
     Mullin
     Murphy (NC)
     Nehls
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Obernolte
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Posey
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Salazar
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sessions
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spartz
     Stauber
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Turner
     Valadao
     Van Drew
     Van Duyne
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Fitzgerald
     Hollingsworth

                              {time}  1111

  Messrs. MURPHY of North Carolina and BAIRD changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. CICILLINE changed his 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.


    members recorded pursuant to house resolution 8, 117th congress

     Barragan (Beyer)
     Bass (Blunt Rochester)
     Brooks (Fleischmann)
     Brown (OH) (Beatty)
     Cardenas (Correa)
     Cooper (Correa)
     Crist (Wasserman Schultz)
     Evans (Beyer)
     Frankel, Lois (Wasserman Schultz)
     Garamendi (Beyer)
     Gimenez (Waltz)
     Gomez (Garcia (TX))

[[Page H5430]]


     Grijalva (Garcia (IL))
     Guest (Fleischmann)
     Johnson (SD) (LaHood)
     Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)
     Khanna (Spanberger)
     Kirkpatrick (Pallone)
     Lamb (Blunt Rochester)
     Leger Fernandez (Neguse)
     Loudermilk (Fleischmann)
     McEachin (Beyer)
     Moore (WI) (Beyer)
     Moulton (Neguse)
     Payne (Pallone)
     Price (NC) (Manning)
     Ruiz (Correa)
     Rush (Jeffries)
     Ryan (Beyer)
     Sanchez (Garcia (TX))
     Sewell (Beatty)
     Sires (Pallone)
     Spartz (Banks)
     Strickland (Takano)
     Suozzi (Beyer)
     Swalwell (Correa)
     Taylor (Fallon)
     Torres (NY) (Blunt Rochester)
     Van Drew
     (Reschenthaler)
     Vargas (Takano)
     Walorski (Banks)
     Waters (Garcia (TX))
     Wilson (FL) (Neguse)

                          ____________________