[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 103 (Tuesday, June 13, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H2822-H2834]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 44, PROVIDING FOR
CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL UNDER THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE BUREAU OF
ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES RELATING TO ``FACTORING
CRITERIA FOR FIREARMS WITH ATTACHED `STABILIZING BRACES' ''; PROVIDING
FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 277, REGULATIONS FROM THE EXECUTIVE IN NEED
OF SCRUTINY ACT OF 2023; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 288,
SEPARATION OF POWERS RESTORATION ACT OF 2023; PROVIDING FOR
CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1615, GAS STOVE PROTECTION AND FREEDOM ACT; AND
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1640, SAVE OUR GAS STOVES ACT
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 495 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 495
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J.
Res. 44) providing for congressional disapproval under
chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule
submitted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and
Explosives relating to ``Factoring Criteria for Firearms with
Attached `Stabilizing Braces' ''. All points of order against
consideration of the joint resolution are waived. The joint
resolution shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the joint resolution are waived. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint
resolution and on any amendment thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their
respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 2. At any time after adoption of this resolution the
Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
277) to amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to
provide that major rules of the executive branch shall have
no force or effect unless a joint resolution of approval is
enacted into law. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees.
After general debate the bill shall be considered for
amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill, an
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the
text of Rules Committee Print 118-6 shall be considered as
adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The
bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill
for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute
rule and shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. No
further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in order
except those printed in part A of the report of the Committee
on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such further
amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the
report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the
report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for
the time specified in the report equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand
for division of the question in the House or in the Committee
of the Whole. All points of order against such further
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill, as amended, to the House with such further
amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and
on any further amendment thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit.
Sec. 3. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 288) to amend
title 5, United States Code, to clarify the nature of
judicial review of agency interpretations of statutory and
regulatory provisions. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. In lieu of the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill, an
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the
text of Rules Committee Print 118-7 shall be considered as
adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read.
All points of order against provisions in the bill, as
amended, are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any
further amendment thereto, to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective
designees; (2) the further amendment printed in part B of the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution, if offered by the Member designated in the
report, which shall be in order without intervention of any
point of order, shall be considered as read, shall be
separately debatable for the time specified in the report
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division
of the question; and (3) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 4. At any time after adoption of this resolution the
Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
1615) to prohibit the use of Federal funds to ban gas stoves.
The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce or their respective designees. After general debate
the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-
minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read. All points
of order against provisions in the bill are waived. No
amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed
in part C of the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be
offered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the
[[Page H2823]]
time specified in the report equally divided and controlled
by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division
of the question in the House or in the Committee of the
Whole. All points of order against such amendments are
waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit.
Sec. 5. At any time after adoption of this resolution the
Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
1640) to prohibit the Secretary of Energy from finalizing,
implementing, or enforcing the proposed rule titled ``Energy
Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Consumer Conventional Cooking Products'', and for other
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce or their respective designees. After
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as
read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are
waived. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except
those printed in part D of the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may
be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in
the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of
order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion
of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee
shall rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except
one motion to recommit.
Sec. 6. The ordering of the yeas and nays on the question
of reconsideration of the vote on adoption of House
Resolution 463 is vacated to the end that the motion to
reconsider be laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
{time} 1230
General Leave
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
House Resolution 495 provides for a structured rule for consideration
of H.R. 277, the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act
of 2023 and provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
House Resolution 495 further provides for a structured rule for
consideration of H.R. 288, the Separation of Powers Restoration Act of
2023. It also provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled
by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
House Resolution 495 further provides for a structured rule for the
consideration of H.R. 1615, the Gas Stove Protection and Freedom Act,
and provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
This resolution further provides for a structured rule for the
consideration of H.R. 1640 and provides 1 hour of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee
on Energy and Commerce.
Furthermore, House Resolution 495 provides for a closed rule for
consideration of H.J. Res. 44 and provides 1 hour of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee
on the Judiciary.
These are five bills that may seem unrelated, but they are very
related, and they have to do with the power of Congress and the fact
that our power has atrophied considerably since the beginning of this
country. In fact, we are almost a vestigial organ of this Republic at
this point, we have ceded so much power to the executive branch, and
that is how all of these bills are related.
Three of the bills seek to repeal laws or regulations that the
administrative branch is unconstitutionally, I would argue,
promulgating.
Two of these bills get at the heart of the matter, the problem that
we have. One of them specifically is the REINS Act, which is very
important. This would rein in our power to legislate.
I don't think our Founders would recognize our form of government at
this point. They never intended for the administrators to be the
lawmakers; yet here we are.
The Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act would send
every major regulation that is suggested--and I say suggested--by the
administration back to Congress where there would have to be a positive
vote of the House and the Senate in order for that to go to the
President and then, with his signature, become law, as all laws should
do.
The other bill in this package that seeks to address the sort of
chronic problem that we have here in Congress is the Separation of
Powers Restoration Act.
It is basically a repeal of a horrible Supreme Court precedent called
the Chevron deference that says, basically, any way the administration
wants to construe one of our laws, they can get away with it.
The Supreme Court will give deference to the interpretation, no
matter how far afield from the original interpretation the law was
given from Congress.
Finally, the three bills today that deal with individual regulations,
two of them deal with gas stoves. This administration has a war on gas
stoves, depending on which person from the administration you listen
to, a rule that is being promulgated by the Consumer Product Safety
Commission and also by the Department of Energy.
There are two rules here. They would ban between 50 to 95 percent of
the gas stoves on the market for arbitrary reasons. It is not clear
that there would be any consumer benefit from banning these. In fact,
consumers would suffer from this ban.
These are the types of rules that we need the REINS Act for. They
would have a significant impact on our economy, and that is why they
should be here in front of Congress, and that is why we are seeking to
countermand them here today.
Finally, I think this is the most important rule that we are
countermanding in legislation this week, and that is the pistol brace
rule from the ATF.
We are not talking about an interpretation of a law where the EPA
says, we think we should allow this much sulfur dioxide instead of that
amount of sulfur dioxide and create a civil infraction where
corporations could be sued or punished. We are talking about criminal
penalties.
The ATF has twisted the existing statute, a law that was passed by
Congress in 1934, and has magically reinterpreted it to create tens of
millions of felons beginning on June 1.
We have a bad situation in this country right now where millions of
people have been turned into felons, law-abiding individuals who are
following the rules that were set forth by the ATF. That is why urgent
action is required on the pistol brace rule repeal here today, and that
is H.J. Res. 44.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is great to see you again. How are you? It has been a
while. You look terrific.
We haven't had votes in what, 5 legislative days, all because some
Republican Members decided to throw a temper tantrum last week on the
House floor, wanting to rehash legislation that was passed the week
before.
What we saw was essentially a fight between the rightwing and the
extreme
[[Page H2824]]
rightwing. I mean, what the hell is going on here?
With each passing week, it becomes more and more obvious that the
Republican Party is completely out of touch with what everyday people
care about in this country.
We are bringing a new rule to the floor that incorporates the bills
that we were supposed to do last week and adds an additional bill to
make it easier to kill people.
I am told that the Republicans now have the votes to pass this rule.
The question is: What was the deal? Better yet, what was the secret
deal to convince the Republicans who were problematic last week to go
along to get along this week?
Reading the press, we see that members of the Freedom Caucus are
saying they have this deal on power sharing.
I am not quite sure what that means. Power sharing with the Speaker
and the extreme rightwing; is that the deal?
We hear from the Speaker that there is no deal on anything. I don't
know what the truth is. Maybe my friend can enlighten us at some point
about what the truth is.
My Republican friends like to say that this place should be run like
a business. Well, if they really believe that, then this place should
be out of business because this is not the way Congress should be run.
This is not the way you run a democracy. This is ridiculous.
Democrats have worked tirelessly to try to lower costs for people,
bring jobs back from China, rebuild our country, fight pollution, and
keep our communities safe.
Republicans? What do they stand for? Well, forgive me if I say I am
not entirely sure because right now, the only thing I have seen so far
since they took over is dysfunction and disarray.
Republicans began this Congress by wasting a week fighting with each
other about who would be Speaker. Now we are 5 months in, and they have
enacted five laws.
One a month. Boy, what an achievement. Even Democrats and President
Trump were able to enact 21 laws at this point.
The far right fringe of the Republican Party, the same fringe that
demanded Speaker McCarthy give them all of his power, has succeeded in
even dictating to him what bills he can and can't bring to the House
floor.
This is important. I want the American people to understand who is in
charge here right now. It is not the Speaker of the House. It is not
Kevin McCarthy. It is the far right of the far right.
We have sitting members of the Republican Conference right now openly
advocating for civil war. These are the people calling the shots. Are
you kidding me?
In what world should the 11 most extreme people in the Republican
Party get to dictate the entire agenda of a legislative body that
represents 332 million people? What are we doing here, Mr. Speaker?
{time} 1245
We have smoke from wildfires clogging up our air. Scientists are
telling us we need to do more on climate change, yet we are passing
messaging bills about gas stoves.
By the way, that is not even me calling them messaging bills. It is
the Republicans saying that. This is a Republican: We do not need to
leave D.C. early because messaging bills are not coming to the House
floor. That was Congresswoman Boebert last week.
How about this one: When we pass things around here that are
messaging bills that don't do anything, is it really a loss that we
aren't passing anything?
I mean, their own Members are saying that the bills they are passing
do nothing. Essentially, they are just playing a messaging game. Is
this really the best we can do with all of the challenges that we face
in this country and around the world?
Meanwhile, our constituents are begging us and they are pleading with
us to do something about gun violence in this country. What do
Republicans do? How do they respond? By bringing to the floor a bill
that makes it easier for the next mass shooter to kill more people. It
is sick.
Mr. Speaker, killed were: 9 people outside a bar in Dayton in 2019;
10 people, including a police officer, at a grocery store in Boulder in
2021; 5 people in an LGBTQ nightclub in Colorado Springs in 2022; and 6
people, including children, at a school in Nashville just a few months
ago. What do they all have in common? They were all killed by mass
shooters who used stabilizing braces.
By the way, the ATF rule that the Republicans are trying to overturn,
contrary to what they say, doesn't even make stabilizing braces
illegal. It doesn't ban them. All it does is it says that you need to
register braces because they are used in a lot of mass shootings.
But for Republicans, any amount of commonsense gun safety regulation
is too much. Why? Because the NRA says so.
Our kids are being slaughtered, for God's sake. Does anyone care? Do
my Republican colleagues care at all that America's parents stay up
wondering whether their kids will be the next one shot at school or at
a mall or at a movie theater or at their own graduation?
People come up to me all the time and they ask me: Why can't
Democrats and Republicans just work together? I tell them I wish we
could. There was a time when we did.
I say to them: Go online and Google the bills that Republicans are
bringing to the floor. Ask yourself why Republicans oppose background
checks on a gun accessory that mass shooters use to kill people. Ask
yourself if it is right that this bill was introduced by a Republican
Member of Congress--and you are going to love this--who owns a gun
store and makes millions of dollars by selling guns and these types of
gun accessories that mass shooters use to kill people. Ask yourself if
it makes sense that the only reason this bill is even on the floor is
because Speaker McCarthy isn't even in charge of the House schedule
anymore; the far, far, far right is.
The craziest thing is this rule was inspired by guidance published
under the Trump administration. Let me repeat that. Even the Trump
administration thought it was necessary to further regulate stabilizing
braces. I can't believe I am about to say this, but I agree.
If you want to know why we can't have real action when it comes to
gun safety, follow the money. In the last decade, the NRA has spent
more than $100 million to help elect Republicans who will support their
extreme agenda. Follow the money. It is no surprise that the far right
is demanding this bill, but it is a shame.
How many more mass shootings need to happen? How many more kids need
to die before my Republican colleagues pull their heads out of the sand
and say the NRA's blood money is not worth the damage that is being
done to our country?
I wish I was wrong, Mr. Speaker, but sadly the cowardice and moral
bankruptcy on the other side of the aisle seems to know no bounds.
Between the new concept of power sharing in the House, which really
just means that the Speaker is going to have to keep a tiny minority of
extremist Members happy for the House to be able to function, and the
fact that their party's frontrunner for the 2024 Presidential election
is being indicted with very serious charges for the second time this
afternoon, I am sorry to say the Republican Party is a train wreck, and
it doesn't bode well for what is to come.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic that the gentleman on the other side of
the aisle is demanding to know what the power-sharing structure is here
in the House, when, in fact, he will spend the rest of his time arguing
that we should give our power to the White House, that the
administrative branch should be making law, in fact, major regulations
that have more than $100 million of impact.
I would say to the gentleman on the other side of the aisle that if
he is wondering about the power-sharing arrangement, then he should
seek to put some power here in the House, restore the power that the
Founders gave us in Article I of the Constitution.
With respect to the solution to the tragic school shootings, some
States have taken it upon themselves to allow qualified teachers and
staff to carry
[[Page H2825]]
firearms. Imagine that, the children are protected by firearms the same
way we are protected here. Why do we sit here and say, oh, we have got
to do something, when we sit behind protection and the children aren't?
I would encourage the other side of the aisle to cosponsor my bill to
change the default setting here in this country. The default setting
was set by the Gun-Free School Zone Act, which makes it illegal to even
be near a school and have a firearm, which makes it harder for States
to set policies that would save our children. All it does is make
felons of law-abiding gun owners.
I would encourage them to look at a real solution. You can ban a
pistol brace, but you are not going to stop a single mass public
shooting. Most of these mass public shootings occur with a pistol, not
a pistol with a brace on it or with a short-barreled rifle, as they
would say, or with a rifle, an assault rifle they might call it.
They can start banning these pieces of plastic, like the Biden
administration is doing, and then they can move on to banning
magazines. As the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee admitted to
me last night, he would like to ban all of the AR-15s. They could ban
handguns. Then they will get down to shotguns. The reality is you can't
stop these tragedies with a ban. You have to change the way we protect
our children.
This pistol brace rule that has been promulgated by the
administrative branch will cause--they just haven't been arrested--will
cause and has already caused tens of millions of Americans to be
felons. That happened on June 1. Time is up. You are done. You are now
a felon if you own one of these braces on your firearm.
Whether you own one or not, most Americans understand what is
happening here. Our system of lawmaking has been turned on its head.
Even more fundamental than that, people were told it was legal by the
ATF. The technical division of the ATF reviewed the prototypes of these
pistol braces in 2012 when Obama was the President.
What did Obama's ATF say to Mr. Bosco, the inventor of the pistol
brace? ``You are asking if the addition of this sample, a buffer tube
forearm brace, would convert a firearm in a manner that would cause it
to be classified as a `rifle' and thus a `firearm' regulated by the
National Firearms Act. . . . `'
``Based on our evaluation,'' our technical department ``finds that
the submitted forearm brace, when attached to a firearm, does not
convert that weapon to be fired from the shoulder and would not alter
the classification of a pistol or other firearm.'' ``. . . Such a
firearm would not be subject to NFA controls.''
This is a letter on ATF letterhead, in fact, the Department of
Justice letterhead, dated November 26, 2012, that millions of Americans
relied on, that many entrepreneurs relied on.
Now what happens? The rug is getting pulled out from under them, but
not by the legislative branch. By the way, we could have repealed this.
The Democrats controlled both chambers. They could have passed a
legislative ban on these braces. They didn't do it. Why didn't they do
it? Maybe it is because they are accountable. They are accountable to
the people, unlike these bureaucrats. Nobody is going to lose an
election at the ATF for promulgating this rule.
The people here are scared. The people here in this Chamber are
scared to do their jobs, and the people in the Senate are scared to do
their jobs, so they would much prefer the administration do our jobs.
What have they done? What is the penalty for owning this piece of
plastic on a firearm that is connected to a pistol? I asked the ranking
member of Judiciary Committee last night in the Rules Committee
meeting. He did not know. It turns out it is a quarter of a million
dollars and 10 years in prison. Is that the appropriate sentence for
somebody who followed the law for 10 years, followed ATF guidance that
was given during the Obama administration and now doesn't even know
they are violating the law? Is 10 years and a quarter million dollars
appropriate? I don't think so. They relied on this letter.
Now, to another part of the pistol brace rule. The ranking member of
the Judiciary Committee and the ATF Director Dettelbach have both
testified incorrectly that you can comply with this pistol brace rule
from the ATF by merely separating the firearm from the brace. That is
wrong. That is not what the ATF rule says.
Why did they say this in testimony? Why did the ranking member of the
Judiciary Committee say this? Why did the ATF Director say this?
Because they wanted to sound reasonable. That may seem like a
reasonable solution, but it is not the solution that the ATF has put
into law.
Again, this isn't a fine. This isn't like saying the EPA decided that
we have too much sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere so we are going to
reduce emissions and set the sulfur dioxide emissions at a different
level and you can be fined if you don't comply and you are a
corporation.
This is not a civil infraction. This is a criminal infraction that
will put millions of Americans in jeopardy of going to jail. For what,
a piece of plastic? Does it make the firearm more dangerous? No. Does
it make the firearm more concealable? No. Does it make the firearm more
deadly? No.
Then I hear from the other side of the aisle: Oh, well, we are not
banning them. Oh, we wouldn't ban them. Really? You are telling people
in the United States you have to register them as short-barreled
rifles. Guess what? That is illegal in 13 States. Thirty-six percent of
Americans live in those 13 States where you can't even comply. You
cannot legally comply with the ATF directive to register that pistol
with that brace on it as a short-barreled rifle. Compliance is
impossible if you want to keep that accessory. It is a ban. It is a de
facto ban, especially on people in those 13 States.
Here is what it is really about. They can't ban guns. They would love
to, but they can't ban them. They can't do it legislatively. The
President came into office and looked at all of the regulations and how
could he ban some guns. Well, he found this one here. How can he get
more guns registered.
By the way, it is illegal for the administrative branch to create a
registry of firearms that are in common circulation here in the United
States. That is illegal. They are not allowed to do it in the
administrative branch. What have they done with this pistol brace rule
over there that we seek to countermand? They are going to create a
registry of millions of Americans who own pistols who happen to have
this brace.
I would argue this wasn't just a way to ban guns with certain
accessories. It was a way to do something else that is not legal, not
authorized by Congress, and that is to require millions of Americans to
register.
To close out this pistol brace rule, I thank Mr. Clyde for
introducing this resolution. It is absolutely necessary. It is very
timely. I wish we had gotten it done before June 1 because now we have
got millions of felons in the United States just waiting to be
arrested; don't even know they are not in compliance. This ATF rule
will do nothing to increase safety.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me say a couple of things. First of all, nobody is
talking about banning anything here. What we are saying is that an
accessory that has been used in a number of mass shootings be
registered. That is it.
By the way, the gentleman said the administration should not be
making laws. The administration is not making laws. They are
administrating and enforcing the laws that we have passed, and they do
that through regulation and rulemaking. I am not sure what the
gentleman is talking about.
Let me also say that he keeps on saying that this bill will turn gun
owners into automatic felons, that by owning or buying one of these
stabilizing braces, American gun owners will become felons. That is
just not true.
By the way, I should tell the gentleman, someone has to be convicted
of a crime in a court to become a felon. Let me give him an example,
one that he might be able to relate to. Despite being charged with 37
counts for mishandling classified documents, former President Trump is
not a felon. He only becomes a felon if he is found guilty of the
crimes that he was charged with and is sentenced to a year or more in
prison, which may very likely happen.
[[Page H2826]]
{time} 1300
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an
article from the Washington Post titled: ``Here are the 37 charges
against Trump and what they mean.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
[From the Washington Post, June 9, 2023]
Here Are the 37 Charges Against Trump and What They Mean
(By Rachel Weiner)
A court on Friday unsealed the federal indictment against
Donald Trump and an aide over classified documents found at
his Mar-a-Lago home and the men's alleged efforts to keep the
government from finding the materials. Here's what we know
about the charges against the former president, brought by
special counsel Jack Smith.
How many charges does Trump face?
Trump is accused of violating seven federal laws but faces
37 separate charges. That is because each classified document
he is accused of holding on to illegally is charged in a
separate count, and his alleged efforts to hide classified
information from federal investigators is charged in several
ways. His longtime aide Walt Nauta faces six charges, five of
which are also lodged against Trump.
What are the charges against Trump?
Espionage Act/unauthorized retention of national defense
information: Trump is charged with 31 counts of violating a
part of the Espionage Act that bars willful retention of
national defense information by someone not authorized to
have it. Such information is defined as ``any document,
writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph,
photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model,
instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national
defense, or information relating to the national defense
which information the possessor has reason to believe could
be used to the injury of the United States or to the
advantage of any foreign nation.'' Technically, that
information does not have to be classified, but in practice
the law is almost exclusively used to prosecute retention of
classified material. In Trump's case, prosecutors say that
all but one of the 31 documents he is charged with illegally
retaining were marked as classified at the ``secret'' or
``top secret'' level. The unmarked document concerned
``military contingency planning,'' according to the
indictment.
A conviction does not require any evidence of a desire to
disseminate the classified information; having it in an
unauthorized location is enough. But the crime requires a
``willful'' mishandling of material ``the possessor has
reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United
States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.'' Charges
are generally not brought without some aggravating factor
making clear the retention was not accidental--such as
evidence of intent to share the information, signs of
disloyalty to the U.S. government, or simply the volume of
documents taken.
Unlike other government employees, the president does not
go through a security clearance process that includes a
pledge to follow classification rules. But Trump received
requests from the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA) and subpoenas from the Justice
Department indicating that the documents in question were
classified and needed to be returned to the U.S. government.
Prosecutors say he instead sought to hide them from federal
investigators. And while the president can declassify most
information, there is a process for doing so. According to
the indictment, Trump twice showed classified information to
others, once while saying that the document was still
classified and lamenting that he no longer had the power to
declassify it.
Conspiracy to obstruct justice: Trump is charged with one
count of conspiring with Nauta to hide classified material
from federal investigators, by lying to the FBI about what
was found at Mar-a-Lago and moving boxes of documents out of
a storage room before agents searched the home. Trump
specifically is accused of suggesting that one of his
attorneys lie to the FBI and help hide or destroy documents.
Tampering with grand jury evidence: Trump and Nauta face
two counts of trying to keep evidence out of grand jurors'
hands: one count of withholding the classified documents and
one of corruptly concealing them. As part of those charges,
Trump is accused of trying to persuade one of his attorneys
to help conceal the documents, while Nauta is accused of
hiding the evidence by moving the boxes of classified
documents.
Concealing evidence in a federal investigation: For the
same alleged conduct of hiding the classified information at
Mar-a-Lago, Trump and Nauta separately face one count of
concealing evidence with the intent to obstruct an FBI
investigation.
False statements: Both Trump and Nauta together face one
count of scheming to making false statements for allegedly
hiding from the FBI and the grand jury that the former
president still had classified documents in his possession.
Trump faces a separate count for causing his attorney to
falsely claim in June 2022 that all classified documents in
the former president's possession had been handed over in
response to a subpoena, according to the indictment. Nauta
alone is accused of lying to the FBI by falsely claiming that
he had nothing to do with moving any boxes.
What possible penalties does Trump face?
The maximum punishment for each count of unlawful retention
of national defense information is 10 years in prison.
Conspiracy to obstruct justice, tampering with grand jury
evidence, and concealing evidence in a federal investigation
all carry punishments of up to 20 years. Each false statement
charge is punishable by up to five years in prison.
If Trump was convicted on all charges, the sentences could
run consecutively, amounting to hundreds of years in prison.
But federal defendants are rarely given the maximum possible
punishment. He does not face any mandatory minimum sentences.
Sentences in unlawful retention cases vary widely,
depending in part on how sensitive the material is, how much
of it there is, how long the person held on to it and his or
her cooperation with investigators. A Defense Department
employee in Manila who took home a small amount of secret-
level information to work on a classified thesis project
served only three months behind bars. Kenneth Wayne Ford Jr.,
who was found guilty at trial of bringing home national
defense information after leaving the National Security
Agency and lying about the case, received a six-year
sentence. A former NSA contractor who over two decades
amassed a huge trove of highly sensitive material, including
hacking tools and details of overseas operations, was
sentenced to nine years in prison. A Navy sailor who took
pictures of classified areas of a nuclear-powered submarine
and then destroyed the evidence was sentenced to a year in
prison for retention and obstruction; Trump later pardoned
him.
Retired Gen. David H. Petraeus was given probation after
pleading guilty to sharing classified information with his
biographer. At the time, the crime of mishandling classified
information--as opposed to national defense information--was
a misdemeanor with a maximum punishment of a year behind
bars. It became a felony during Trump's presidency.
What other criminal charges does Trump face?
Trump is charged in New York State Court with unrelated
crimes for conduct that predates his presidency. He is
accused of falsifying business records to hide payments
during the 2016 campaign made to an adult-film star to keep
her from saying publicly that she had an affair with Trump.
Trump is also under investigation by a state prosecutor in
Georgia, who is looking at his efforts to overturn President
Biden's 2020 victory in that state. Smith is also
investigating Trump's attempts to stay in office after losing
the presidential election, including his pressure on
officials in battleground states and fundraising off false
claims of election fraud.
Has Trump responded to the charges?
The former president described himself as ``an innocent
man'' being treated unfairly in comparison with Biden.
Classified documents from the Obama administration were
discovered in Biden's Delaware home late last year by lawyers
cleaning out his home office. Biden's attorneys turned those
documents over to NARA, and the president gave the Justice
Department permission to search the home, as well as his
beach house and think tank office. The White House has said
that only ``a small number'' of documents from Biden's vice-
presidential tenure were found. A special counsel has been
appointed to oversee that investigation.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my next speaker, I have
to say, we heard a lot of words from the gentleman and from other
Republicans who speak on these issues. Do you know what we don't hear?
We don't hear any empathy for the families who have lost loved ones to
gun violence.
I began my opening remarks by citing examples of how this accessory
was used in mass shootings. Children, mothers, fathers, grandmothers,
and grandfathers lost their lives. They were murdered. Police were
murdered. There is not even any empathy. There is no acknowledgment
that this is a terrible tragedy.
All we hear about is: Don't take away my toys. Don't interfere with
my hobby. You can't register any of these things.
I think people are so sick and tired of where our priorities are.
People are sick and tired of having the National Rifle Association and
all of their money dictate what our policies should be on guns. They
don't care about all the people who have died and have been murdered in
this country.
By the way, other countries have similar challenges and problems that
we do, but they don't have the level of gun violence. They don't have
massacres on a regular basis. This is what we get. Enough.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs.
McBath).
Mrs. McBATH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the underlying
resolution and the rule.
[[Page H2827]]
Mr. Speaker, I speak today not just as a Member of Congress but as a
mother, a mother whose son was taken from her by gun violence, the very
thing that we are talking about again today, and a mother who has
fought every day since then to make sure that no other mother, no other
family, no other community feels that pain or feels that loss.
Arm braces have become the attachment of choice for mass shooters in
this country, the attachment of choice for the King Soopers shooter in
Boulder who took the lives of 10 people, including a law enforcement
officer; the attachment of choice for the shooter who murdered five
individuals at Club Q, an LGBTQ nightclub; and the attachment of choice
for the Nashville shooter who slaughtered three innocent babies in an
elementary school.
We cannot continue to allow weapons of war in our communities, in our
meeting centers, and in our schools.
What I just cannot understand is: What are our Republican colleagues
afraid of? You swore an oath to protect and serve your constituents.
What are you afraid of?
My Democratic colleagues are doing their job. We bring forth policy
after policy after policy: Federal background checks for all gun sales,
so a law-abiding gun owner can still own guns; the assault weapons ban,
keeping those weapons of mass destruction, weapons of war, out of the
hands of people who shouldn't have them; closing the Charleston
loophole. These are just commonsense solutions that the American people
are crying out for.
As a mother who has lost her child, I spend all of my time talking to
survivors, day in and day out.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from Georgia.
Mrs. McBATH. Mr. Speaker, I spend all of my time, day in and day out,
with survivors and families. What are you afraid of?
We have to do the right thing and preserve human life. That is why we
were sent here. I implore you, and I am sure I will do it again and
again and again, to do what is right, to respond to that oath to
protect and serve the people who are waiting and crying out for us to
keep them safe.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks
to the Chair.
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, as a father and a grandfather, my heart
breaks when I see the victims of these deranged killers at schools and
elsewhere. We need serious solutions.
I think it is an insult to the victims and families that banning a
piece of plastic is going to save a life--it won't--or telling them
that putting up a sign that says gun-free zone will save a life. It
won't. It will cost lives.
When one of my former staffers was married for less than a year, she
and her husband had a karaoke business, and she had a stalker who
followed them to each of their events. She got a concealed carry
license in Tennessee and carried her gun to protect herself from the
stalker. This was Nikki who worked for me.
One night, they set up their business in a bar, and the sign said
``No Guns Inside'' because they served alcohol. Nikki left her firearm
to protect herself in the car, but her stalker did not leave his.
He came into the bar and shot her husband viciously in front of her.
She has to live with that. That is why she wants serious solutions. She
knows that gun-free zones are unserious. She knows that banning pieces
of plastic is not serious. She knows that children deserve the
protection that we have here.
We all know, if you are willing to look at the data, that in every
school that has allowed qualified teachers and staff to carry a
firearm, there has never been a school shooting. It is a fact.
We need to work on serious solutions, not unserious solutions like
banning a piece of plastic.
Mr. Speaker, going to the stove ban, which is also unserious, it is
going to cost consumers. It is going to make the products less safe,
not more safe. It is going to make them less available. It is not about
safety or efficiency or consumer benefit. It is about banning fossil
fuels. That is why this administration has declared a war on gas
stoves.
Two of the bills in this package would repeal those rules from this
administration.
Natural gas, when it is used in appliances, is 3.4 times more
affordable than electricity. Why is that? Let's think about where that
electricity comes from. A natural gas plant can burn electricity, spin
a turbine, create electricity at maybe 50 percent efficiency and then
put it on wires that are hundreds of miles long to go to a household.
Those wires may be 70 percent, 80 percent efficient.
When it gets to the household, what do you do with that energy that
came from the natural gas that is now electricity? You turn it back
into heat if you have an electric stove, which is how this
administration would want you to live.
Guess what? That is less than half as efficient. It costs 3.4 times
more to do it that way than to create electricity with natural gas and
then use the electricity at your house than if you just brought the
natural gas to the household. In fact, consumers who use natural gas in
their house save over $1,000 a year.
This is a war on the middle class and the poor. The war on gas stoves
is a war on affordable heating and cooking.
When the electricity goes out in natural disasters, whose stoves
work? The ones who have gas stoves.
Who can boil water to drink when the water is unsafe because of a
natural disaster? Those who have gas stoves.
This administration should quit gaslighting consumers by telling them
they are acting in their best interest. The Federal Interagency
Committee on Indoor Air Quality has never identified gas stoves as
contributing to asthma or respiratory illness. The Consumer Product
Safety Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency have never
identified gas stoves as a significant contributor to adverse air
quality or as a health hazard.
Why are they doing this? It is a war on gas stoves. These two bills
would seek to reverse that. It is just common sense.
In fact, the other side of the aisle said these are messaging bills.
Guess what? Some Democrats liked the message because they voted for
these bills in the Energy and Commerce Committee. It must be a great
message. It must be a message the American people want to hear. It must
be a message that they like to hear because they know if we had the
Senate and the White House, this kind of ridiculousness would not go
on. That is why it is important to pass these two bills to protect our
gas stoves.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we didn't call them messaging bills. Members of the
Republican Conference called them messaging bills, I would remind the
gentleman.
The gentleman says that we need serious solutions to gun violence in
this country. I think I heard the gentleman correctly, that he is
suggesting it is okay for people to carry guns into bars when they are
drunk. I don't think that is very serious.
The idea that we can shoot our way into gun safety is insane. We
already have more guns than people in this country. We are the only
country in the world that has massacres that occur on a regular basis.
The gentleman is saying that people should be able to carry guns into
bars when they are drunk, that we ought to give teachers more guns, and
that everybody ought to have more guns and everybody will be safe. This
is insane. It doesn't make any sense.
At some point, people are going to have to have the courage to stand
up to the gun lobby and say no to the NRA's money and actually do what
is in the best interest of the American people, do what will protect
the people of this country. To hear this nonsense--this place is
crazier than usual.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the GOP has become, sadly, the ``Guns Over
People'' party. Their answer to the desperate pleas of families from
all across America who want to stop the slaughter of schoolchildren and
other innocents--their answer is to do absolutely nothing.
Today, during this National Gun Violence Awareness Month, what do
they do?
[[Page H2828]]
They go a step further. This is the only opportunity this year that
Speaker McCarthy has permitted us to consider any gun violence
legislation. What do they do about gun violence?
They enable a little more of it. More pistol braces in the hands of
killers will cause us to brace for more death.
Republicans want to stop an ATF rule that will require background
checks in certain narrow instances when a brace turns a handgun into a
rifle. Background checks are exactly what we need for all gun purchases
so that those who go through the gun shop loophole and don't get a
check when they buy it at a gun show or on the internet have to have
the same standard as if they bought it in a gun shop.
They will not even permit us to respond to the desperate pleas of the
people of Uvalde to ban weapons of war from the hands of teenagers who
couldn't on their own go out and buy a beer.
There is an orgy of violence going on, and they are obstructing those
of us who want to respond to the police from doing anything about it,
from banning weapons of war, from requiring background checks to ensure
we know what kind of person is getting a gun and, if they have a
problem, they ought to be denied that access.
The gun industry is marketing these so-called ``stabilizing braces''
to convert heavy pistols into short-barreled rifles that are more
concealable.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the guns are already the number one killer
of children in our country. This year, there have been 291 mass
shootings. We can count the numbers, but we can't count the pain of an
empty chair where there was once a vibrant parent or a wonderful little
child who was murdered in a mass shooting. This Congress could do
something about it if we could end the obstruction. We need to move
toward reducing gun violence, not enabling it.
{time} 1315
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I wonder, since we are proposing that
children would be saved by banning a piece of plastic, has anyone on
the other side of the aisle proposed that Congressmen are safer now
that this piece of plastic is banned?
I don't think so.
Has anyone proposed that gun-free zone signs would keep us safe?
I don't think so.
What I see surrounding me here and right outside the door are people
with firearms protecting us. Our children deserve the same respect and
the same serious solutions.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy),
who is my good friend and colleague on the Rules Committee, to speak in
favor of the rule as he did in the committee.
Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Kentucky for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, here we are engaging in the theater of the absurd, yet
again, from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle just
blatantly denying the power grab being carried out by the executive
branch yet again. They don't seem to care so long as it suits their
ends in terms of policy.
Everybody who follows this understands that the court is almost
certain to strike this down. We have already seen it happen in the
Fifth Circuit. We are pretty clear about the extent to which this is an
abuse of the Administrative Procedures Act, the extent to which this is
an unconstitutional violation of our Second Amendment rights, and the
court, no doubt, like the Fifth Circuit, will follow suit.
That is just the simple truth, just like we expect the court to most
likely rule that the President's power grab to extend a bailout for
student loans will also be struck down. That is almost certainly true.
However, what is also true is that it is incumbent upon the United
States Congress--the House of Representatives in particular--to stand
up in defense of the Constitution, in defense not just as might seem
most apparent here, a defense of the Second Amendment which this most
certainly is, but, in fact, a defense of separation of powers, that, in
fact, it is not the executive branch that makes law.
When the Speaker of the House actually says that the President
doesn't have power to do something and then refuses, as the previous
Speaker, Speaker Pelosi, did to do anything about what the President is
doing to exercise that authority unconstitutionally--as was the case
with the student loan--then it begs the question: Do any of my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle give a whit about separation
of powers or about the fact that it is a clear abuse of the power of
the executive branch?
The answer is no. That is the clear truth. They don't give a whit
about that, nor do they give a whit about it here because they like the
outcome of the policy: the banning of a piece of plastic. That is the
truth.
However, it is not really about the pistol braces, is it? Because
really that was, in fact, something created by marine and Army veteran
Alex Bosco inventing the pistol stabilizing brace to help his friend, a
disabled combat veteran, at the shooting range.
At the time, the ATF--President Obama's ATF--advised Mr. Bosco that a
stabilizing brace did not convert a pistol into a short-barreled rifle.
He relied upon that.
Now, here we are a decade later, and the Biden ATF wants to reverse
that by executive fiat, not through the congressional powers, not by
legislation, as was possible last summer when my colleagues had the
House, the Senate, and the White House. No. No. They prefer to go ahead
and use the unaccountable and unelected bureaucrat at the ATF to make
policy.
We are here to say that that is a bad idea. It is a bad idea for the
Republic, it is a bad idea for freedom, and it is a bad idea with
respect to our fundamental rights.
The reality here is my colleagues on the other side of the aisle know
full well what they want to do. It is not just to ban an accessory.
They want to ban firearms. They want to ban firearms from top to
bottom, and this is a step to do it. I have always been taught that if
your opponents say something, you should believe them. That is the
reality.
I hope my colleagues on this side of the aisle will stand up to the
CRA and send it over to the Senate where it most assuredly might end up
being a message amendment because the President of the United States
will almost assuredly veto it because he doesn't care about separation
of powers either.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This is strange what we hear on the House floor today. My friends keep
on talking about veterans and people with disabilities, but I don't see
any major veterans organization or disability organization that has
endorsed this bill. The gentleman talks about the fact that we have
security here. Yes, the Capitol Police who protect us all have had
background checks and have all had training.
It is interesting that we have a rule when my friends are in charge
where you can't bring weapons on the House floor. I feel good about
that after I have listened to some of my colleagues here today.
I also remind the gentleman that there were police officers at
Uvalde. We hear from police officers and organizations all across the
country all the time how they don't want to have to get into situations
where they are battling with somebody who has an AR-15.
People are dying in this country on a regular basis. Massacres are
happening on a regular basis, and we are on the floor to basically make
it easier for people to have access to an accessory that can make a gun
more deadly and more accurate that can kill more people. I mean, it
doesn't make any sense. All I can think of is the fact that some of my
friends are afraid to take on the gun lobby. They are afraid to lose
their money. $100 million in NRA money went into campaigns in the
last 10 years--$100 million. We have to get our priorities straight
here in this Congress. We have to put people ahead of guns. Mr.
Speaker, I am going to urge that we defeat the previous question, and
if we do, then I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for
consideration of a resolution which states that it is the House's duty
to protect and preserve Social Security
[[Page H2829]]
and Medicare for our future generations and reject any cuts to these
essential programs.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Casar), to discuss our proposal.
Mr. CASAR. Mr. Speaker, I was here alongside all of you during the
State of the Union when my Republican colleagues stood up and started
jeering, booing, yelling, and complaining saying that indeed, they
weren't interested in cutting Social Security or Medicare. However, in
the weeks since, it has become clear to me that was all talk and no
votes, or as we say in Texas, all hat and no cattle.
In fact, this week the Republican head of appropriations just said
that she wants to see even deeper cuts to critical Federal programs.
That means bigger classroom sizes for our students and our struggling
teachers and longer wait times for our veterans seeking healthcare, all
to finance bigger tax cuts for billionaires and multinational
corporations.
Social Security and Medicare are not safe until we step up and vote
to make sure they are safe. That is why I urge my colleagues to defeat
the previous question so that we can vote for H.R. 178, which would put
our money where our mouth is.
I urge my Republican colleagues to prove me wrong because what we are
planning on voting on this week are things like a ludicrous gas stove
bill of rights.
Are they kidding me?
What we are talking about voting on this week is deregulating gun
accessories that have been used in mass shootings across the country.
Really?
It is disrespectful, it is dangerous, and it is a distortion of our
oath and our job that we have committed to doing here today.
So instead of bowing to the gun lobby, we are passing these ludicrous
messaging bills. Let's work on solving real problems, or, at a minimum,
let's stop these attacks on Social Security and Medicare.
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time each side
has remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky has 6 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 8 minutes remaining.
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding
time.
This really is about saving lives. Eight children a day die from gun
violence. In addition, 40,000 Americans die from gun violence
throughout the year.
I thank Congressman Thompson of California for making clear what we
are saying here today. A veteran can buy a brace any day of the year.
We love, respect, and admire our veterans. However, at the same time,
we respect our first responders, police officers, firefighters, and
others who are on the front line or former combat officers who say that
we don't need automatic weapons in the hands of civilians. There is no
hunting purpose. There is no purpose.
You haven't lived until you see a shoot-out in your district between
a criminal with a ghost gun against police officers. That is what we
are trying to prevent. I don't want to see that in Houston, Texas, ever
again.
A person can buy the brace without a background check. When it
becomes a dangerous weapon, when that brace changes the gun's legal
status and makes it, in essence, the same that caused a mass shooting
at a Boulder, Colorado, supermarket, then the stabilizing brace and a
shorter barrel made a pistol under Federal gun regulations.
Saving lives is why I am standing here on the floor. Protecting
police officers and protecting firefighters is why I am on the floor.
The highest calling that I have on the floor is protecting children and
stopping Uvalde, Sandy Hook, Parkland, Santa Fe, and the list goes on.
A brace can be bought without a background check, and the rule that
is being overturned simply says the ATF is doing the right thing.
Mr. Speaker, vote for the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I am here today to speak in opposition to the proposed
legislation, H.R. 1615--the Gas Stove Protection Freedom Act and H.R.
1640--the Save our Gas Stoves Act.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is responsible for
protecting children and other consumers from unreasonable risk of
injury or death from consumer products.
The CPSC carries out its mission by investigating allegations that
consumer products pose an unreasonable safety risk, working with
industry to develop voluntary product safety standards, issuing, and
enforcing mandatory standards on hazardous consumer products, and
recalling unsafe consumer products or arranging for their repair.
The CPSC has a history of protecting children and adults from safety
risks across a wide range of products, including removing hazardous
infant sleep products from the market, adopting corded window coverings
standards to prevent strangulation of children, and working with
industry to reduce the risk of fires from micro mobility devices like
hoverboards and e-scooters.
Republicans are deliberately misleading the American public with this
legislation, which is designed to scare consumers and, unfortunately,
Republicans are ignoring the reasonable steps the CPSC has taken to
study and address the hazards posed to our children by gas stove
emissions.
Legitimate concerns have been raised about the health impact,
particularly on children, of the nitrogen dioxide emitted by gas
stoves.
Observational studies have found that children living in households
that use gas stoves are 42 percent more likely to have asthma.
In December 2022, CPSC issued a recall on a specific gas stove
product that was found to be a serious risk of injury or death from
carbon monoxide poisoning.
H.R. 1615 would prohibit CPSC from using its rulemaking authority to
ban all such hazardous products to protect to Americans.
As the Chairman of the CPSC explained earlier this year, the
Commission does not have a proceeding to ban gas stoves but is
researching gas stoves and exploring ways to address health risks.
The Republicans' bill peddles the lie that the Biden Administration
is attempting to ban gas stoves, but the facts simply are not on their
side.
H.R. 1615 will stifle scientific investigation into health hazards
and create bad precedent when it comes to protecting our children from
health and safety hazards.
Protecting and improving the health and well-being of our children
should not be a partisan issue.
On a bipartisan basis, we should be encouraging the CPSC to explore
all allegations that appliances or other consumer products put our
children's health at risk and give the CPSC more, not fewer, tools for
eliminating or mitigating safety risks they uncover.
It is unconscionable to limit the CPSC's options for addressing the
potential risks of gas stoves--a product found in homes across
America--before the CPSC has fully explored the risks posed by gas
stoves and potential solutions.
Efficiency standards are not bans.
Republicans are deliberately misleading the American public to
prevent the Department of Energy (DOE) from fulfilling its statutory
obligations and finalizing an efficiency standard that will save
consumers money.
H.R. 1640 prohibits the Secretary of Energy from finalizing or
enforcing a February 2023 proposed rule that would improve the
efficiency of electric and gas stoves, ultimately saving families money
on their energy bills.
The Republicans' bill simply peddles the lie that the Biden
Administration is attempting to ban gas stoves, but the facts simply
are not on their side.
DOE cannot ban gas stoves. DOE is simply proceeding with a
Congressionally mandated efficiency standard.
The proposed efficiency standard will save Americans money through
lower energy bills while cutting harmful indoor air pollution that
disproportionately impacts children's health.
DOE's proposed rule is one of their statutorily required standards--
and it follows years of inaction and missed statutorily mandated
standards deadlines by the Trump Administration.
In the Fall of 2020, multiple organizations and states filed lawsuits
asserting Trump's DOE was in violation of deadlines for the review of
25 of its energy conservation standards.
This Republican bill doubles down on that legacy by obstructing DOE
from doing what Congress and a court settlement have required it to do.
Republicans' fearmongering over gas stoves is nothing more than a
cheap political stunt
[[Page H2830]]
designed to scare consumers and protect their fossil fuel friends.
H.R. 1640 prioritizes profits for Big Oil and Gas over the health and
economic well-being of everyday Americans.
Efficiency standards save Americans money, while the Republicans'
bill will only increase energy costs for Americans and pad the pockets
of their fossil fuel friends.
Republicans' scare tactics include pushing a false narrative about
how ``96 percent of gas stoves on the market don't meet the proposed
standard.''
This is simply not true.
This deliberate fearmongering is the result of Republicans
purposefully misrepresenting DOE data to serve their own political
goals.
The statistic Republicans are referencing comes from a DOE test of
high-end models that they anticipated would not meet the standard. The
test, by design, was not representative of the entire market.
The truth is, nearly half of products on the market today are already
in compliance with the proposed rule, including all entry level models.
In a testament to just how far Republicans are willing to go to prop
up their polluter friends, H.R. 1640 goes beyond an amendment offered
by Rep. Palmer (R-AL) that was added to H.R. 1 by significantly
limiting future DOE rulemaking.
This bill does not include a sunset clause--it could forever limit
DOE from taking substantive action to improve the energy efficiency of
Americans' cooktops.
While the Palmer Amendment would prevent DOE from moving forward with
one standard related to cooktop efficiency, H.R. 1640 goes even further
by amending the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to restrict DOE from
taking similar action in the future.
This bill sets a bad precedent that polluters could seek to exploit.
DOE is already prohibited from banning products based on their fuel
source, but H.R. 1640 adds yet another hurdle: it requires DOE to prove
that a conservation standard is not likely to result in the
unavailability of a product based on the fuel it consumes.
This added condition could significantly weaken and slow down DOE's
ability to issue future energy conservation standards.
DOE's proposed energy efficiency standard for gas and electric stoves
is smart, commonsense policy that would cut pollution, improve
Americans' health, and lower energy bills. And it can be achieved using
readily available design changes.
DOE's commonsense proposal will benefit Americans' health and
pocketbooks.
DOE estimates the proposal will: Save consumers as much as $1.71
billion and slash nearly 22 million metric tons of carbon dioxide and
245 thousand tons of methane.
These benefits would come without imposing any undue burdens on
manufacturers.
DOE's proposed rule gives manufacturers three years after the date of
the rule's publication to comply.
Nearly half of products on the market today are already in compliance
with the proposed rule, and there are readily available design changes
available for those that don't.
Energy efficiency standards are popular: three out of five Americans
support stricter energy efficiency standards for appliances and
buildings.
It is time we stop the negativity and counterproductive efforts that
are ripping apart our country, and to instead focus on coming together
to work towards sensible and effective solutions that can work for the
betterment and growth of our country.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reassert my opposition to H.R. 277, the
``Regulation from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act'' and
H.R. 288, ``The Separation of Powers Restoration Act of 2023.''
First in addressing, H.R. 277, the REINS Act, is a measure that has
been offered by Republicans dating back to 2012, is and has always been
a problematic bill that would restrict agency rulemaking procedures and
undermine public health and safety.
Because it would require both houses of Congress to pass, and the
President to sign, a joint resolution of approval for any major rule
before they can take effect, this bill would effectively act as a
chokehold on Federal agency rulemaking.
I along with my colleagues have attempted to address many of the ills
these bills purport by offering common sense amendments that
Republicans have continued to refuse any meaningful consideration.
My amendment to H.R. 277, listed on the Rules Committee roster as
Amendment #30 would have exempted from the bill the congressional
approval requirement for any proposed rule that is made to ensure the
safety of products used or consumed by children under the age of 2.
Without such an amendment, the RAINS act cripples the Federal
government's ability to protect our children and prioritize their
safety.
As it stands, this bill has no exceptions or flexibility when it
comes to pressing issues of public health and safety.
It is deeply troubling that REINS Act will delay the implementation
of integral new public health and safety safeguards, putting our
children at risk.
As such, the REINS Act will ultimately fail to protect the public as
it places an expertise-based process into the hands of the government,
allowing the political games we have seen in the House this Congress to
continue.
Because of the special vulnerability of young children and the
distinct threat that the implementation of the REINS poses to the
current regulatory process, I urge my colleagues to join me in
opposition to H.R. 277.
Second in addressing H.R. 288, ``The Separation of Powers Restoration
Act of 2023'' which purports to address constitutional and statutory
deficiencies in the judicial review of agency rulemaking.
Yet, this bill is a long-repeated effort to shift the scope and
authority of judicial review of agency actions away from federal
agencies by amending Section 706 of the Administrative Procedures Act
(APA) to ``require that courts decide all relevant questions of law,
including all questions of the interpretation of constitutional,
statutory, and regulatory provisions, on a de novo basis without
deference to the agency that promulgated the final rule, unless
otherwise expressly provided by statute.
Effectively, H.R. 288 would abolish judicial deference to agencies'
statutory interpretations in federal rulemaking and create harmful and
costly burdens to the administrative process.
Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the ability for agencies to act in
times of imminent need to protect citizens.
In particular, H.R. 288 would make sweeping and dangerous changes
that would jeopardize the ability of the Department of Homeland
Secuirty to protect our nation in times of urgent and imminent need.
My amendment to H.R. 288, listed on the Rules Committee roster as
Amendment #3 would have been a simple but necessary revision that would
remedy this concern by excluding from the bill cases with rules made by
the Secretary of Homeland Security and pertaining to any matter of
national security.
As a Senior Member of the Homeland Security Committee, I understand
the many challenges the Department of the Homeland Security (DHS)
already faces and its critically important role in preventing terror
threats and keeping Americans safe.
The Department is the first line of defense in protecting the nation
and leading recovery efforts from all-hazards and threats which include
everything from weapons of mass destruction to natural disasters.
We do not need to be reminded of the heightened state of security are
nation is in and the ever-increasing demands imposed upon our
government agencies tasked with keeping our borders and citizens safe.
Now is not the time to undermine or slow the ability of DHS and its
ability to address growing threats and active acts of terrorism.
The overall mission of DHS is too critical and its functions
indispensably essential, such that it would be impugned to do anything
that will slow down the process that allows DHS to do its job.
Given the absence of my essential amendment and the fact that H.R.
288 would cripple Federal agency's ability to act in times of imminent
need, I urge opposition to H.R. 288.
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the other side of the aisle for pointing out
that all the ATF rule does is change the legal status, that you can
still get the brace and you can still get the pistol.
The last thing that is on a criminally deranged person's mind is:
What is the legal status of my firearm? Is this a pistol? Is this a
rifle? Is it a short-barreled rifle? How much time will I get when I go
on this suicide mission for doing this because of the legal status?
However, what changing legal status does is it creates millions of
felons out of legal firearm owners who presumed they were operating
legally.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Roy).
Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend from Kentucky for
yielding.
The gentleman from Massachusetts was questioning why he hasn't heard
from any veteran groups in support of this.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an
article titled: ``Wisconsin veterans sue ATF over new rule for
stabilizing braces.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
[[Page H2831]]
[From the Capital Times, January 31, 2023]
Wisconsin Veterans Sue ATF Over New Rule for Stabilizing Braces
(By Jessie Opoien)
A conservative Wisconsin law firm filed a lawsuit on
Tuesday challenging a new federal firearm registry rule it
says would curb the Second Amendment rights of disabled
military veterans.
The Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty is representing
two Wisconsin veterans and one from Texas in the suit, which
was filed in the Northern District of Texas. It's the first
legal challenge to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms
and Explosives rule, and the sixth WILL has filed against the
Biden administration.
Under the rule, pistols with stabilizing braces must be
treated as short-barreled rifles, which have been subject to
heightened regulations including stricter registration
requirements since the 1930s. Those regulations include
mandatory background checks for all transfers (sales),
including private transfers.
Stabilizing braces were invented to help disabled shooters
fire guns safely--but they have also been used in recent mass
shootings in Colorado and Ohio.
``In the days of Al Capone, Congress said back then that
short-barreled rifles and sawed-off shotguns should be
subjected to greater legal requirements than most other guns.
The reason for that is that short-barreled rifles have the
greater capability of long guns, yet are easier to conceal,
like a pistol,'' said ATF director Steven Dettelbach in a
statement. ``But certain so-called stabilizing braces are
designed to just attach to pistols, essentially converting
them into short-barreled rifles to be fired from the
shoulder. Therefore, they must be treated in the same way
under the statute.''
The plaintiffs in the case are Gabriel A. Tauscher, of
Oconomowoc; Shawn M. Kroll, of Hartland; and Darren A.
Britto, of Amarillo, Texas. All three are Marine veterans who
own pistols with barrels less than 16 inches and use
stabilizing braces. They use their weapons for personal
protection, recreational shooting and hunting. Under the ATF
rule, they would be required to register their firearms as
short-barreled rifles.
A stabilizing brace is attached to the shooter's forearm to
assist with accuracy, comfort and safety. The lawsuit argues
that stabilizing braces are not designed and intended for a
pistol to be fired from the shoulder, unlike a rifle.
``These military veterans defended our country overseas,
and now they are defending our rights here at home,'' said
WILL deputy counsel Dan Lennington in a statement. ``WILL is
proud to represent these patriots. The Biden administration
has no power to re-classify pistols as rifles, and we will
vigorously defend the Second Amendment in federal court.''
WILL's complaint argues the rule violates the Second
Amendment and the separation of powers.
The rule implements a 120-day period for manufacturers,
dealers and individuals to register affected weapons tax-
free. People can also comply with the rule by removing
stabilizing braces or surrendering guns covered by it to the
ATF. Those who don't comply could face fines or imprisonment.
WILL's lawsuit asks the court to block the rule.
Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, there are others. The fact of the matter is
there are many veterans groups--that is one; we will get you some
more--who are supportive of this bill and who are supportive of this
effort to protect their Second Amendment rights.
That is a fact because my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
want registration because they want to take guns from the American
people because they know that liberty rests with the people.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I won't hold my breath waiting for the
other names.
It is astounding to me that my friends on the other side of the aisle
don't want any gun laws. Basically, they lack empathy for the murders
and deaths in this country that happen on a regular basis. I mean, at
some point, we have to say enough is enough. They have to put people
ahead of the gun lobby, and my friends are incapable of doing that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico
(Ms. Leger Fernandez), who is a distinguished member of the Rules
Committee.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, last month, there were two mass
shootings in my district, one in Farmington and another in Red River.
On Friday, I met with police officers, victims, and neighbors who
were terrified and wounded. An 18-year-old used an assault rifle and
several other guns to kill three beautiful souls and injure six,
including two police officers.
I sat with the victims and listened to their stories of horror and
pain. There were 144 bullets fired before the shooter even left his
front yard. One neighbor held my shoulders as he shared, from a place
of unbearable pain, what it sounds like when a powerful weapon
discharges and you see your neighbor bleeding to death on the street.
We know that the trauma of gun violence extends beyond those killed
or injured. That is why my constituents and Americans are pleading with
Congress to do what we can to prevent gun violence.
What happens, though? What do we come back to? Instead of addressing
gun violence, Republicans stand with the gun lobby to make it easier to
evade gun safety laws.
When it became obvious that gun manufacturers were selling powerful
pistols and then selling shoulder braces to turn them into rifles, the
Trump administration began work on a regulation to treat these
constructed rifles as the powerful weapons they are. The Biden
administration finished the job.
{time} 1330
Gun manufacturers and sellers are using a loophole to avoid public
safety protections. This is how gun salesmen are describing the
loophole: ``It might look and function like a rifle, but thanks to the
fact that AR-15 pistols don't come built with a stock, they're legally
classified as pistols, giving them a full pardon from inconvenient NFA
restrictions.''
Listen, if it looks like a rifle, shoots like a rifle, and kills like
a rifle, we should treat it like a rifle. That is common sense, but
sometimes common sense isn't that common in the House these days.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand with the victims, to stand
with the people, and put people over the profits of the gun lobby.
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, 6,000 veterans signed a petition opposing the ATF rule,
so I hope that is enough to convince the other side.
However, I now switch to two other bills that are in this rules
package because this is Groundhog Day. We will be here again. The
administration does something which has the effect of law, and then we
are feckless to change it.
There have been over 90,000 rules promulgated since the Congressional
Review Act was put into place. Only 20 rules have ever been
countermanded because it is such a high bar to get a majority of the
House and a majority of the Senate and the President to sign something
to undo a law.
How did it become law? Just because the administrative branch willed
it into existence.
Our Constitution says: ``All legislative powers herein granted shall
be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a
Senate and a House of Representatives.''
Does it say, and also an ATF or also an EPA? No, it does not. It says
House and Senate.
Does it say, some legislative powers? No. It says, all legislative
powers are vested in Congress.
The REINS Act would do quite a bit to restore our power. Not enough,
though, because the Chevron deference still exists.
The other bill in this package is the Separation of Powers
Restoration Act, which is a legislative repeal of the tragic Chevron
deference that has plagued this country for so many years, where the
Supreme Court gives full latitude, broad authority to the
administrative branch to twist and contort the laws that we make in
creating new laws.
I urge people to vote for this rule because it includes these two
packages, which put our Republic back into a structure that our
Founding Fathers envisioned, where the legislators make the laws, and
the administration enforces the laws.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman how many
additional speakers he has?
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I am
prepared to close.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
Mr. Speaker, we have real problems in this country. I mean, the
Northern Hemisphere was on fire. You couldn't walk outside last week
without a mask in Washington, D.C., New York City, or a number of major
cities and communities all across the Northeast. Our
[[Page H2832]]
planet has a fever. I mean, we have a real issue here with climate
change, but we don't talk about those things.
There are a zillion issues that we need to deal with, but instead we
come to the floor with--this is what the Republicans have said--
messaging bills. Those are their words, not mine. These messaging bills
promote their culture war against gas stoves, and these messaging
bills, I guess, make the NRA even happier.
The gentleman talks about veterans who want this. There are 16
million veterans in this country. If this were a priority of our
veterans, these major organizations would be supporting this bill, but
they are not.
The bottom line is, we are here talking about stuff that will not
help anybody. In fact, this gun bill just makes it easier for people to
kill people.
Why are we doing this? This makes absolutely no sense.
Last week, my Republican friends fought with each other, and nothing
got done. This week, we are bringing bills to the floor that Republican
Members are calling nothing more than messaging bills.
Congress was created to help solve problems, to help people. My
Republican friends think that that is a foreign idea. This is helping
nobody. It is a joke that we are here today bringing this horrific bill
to the floor basically so that the NRA can be happy and justify another
$100 million into their campaigns.
People are dying every single day in this country, and we hardly hear
a word about it from the other side of the aisle. In fact, during this
debate, very little was even acknowledged in terms of the people who
are dying in this country. We can do so much better.
I used to have a history teacher who used to say the world will not
get better on its own. I didn't really know what he was talking about
when I took the course, but I do now. Nothing good happens unless good
people come together and make change.
There have to be some reasonable people on the Republican side who
understand that gun violence is out of control. We have more guns in
this country than people. We can't shoot our way out of this problem,
and yet that is what my Republican friends are suggesting.
Enough is enough. We need to get back to doing the people's business.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous
question, vote ``no'' on the rule, and vote ``no'' on all this garbage
messaging legislation that will follow. We are here to solve problems,
to make people's lives better. Let's do something that actually makes
the American people proud of this Congress. This is embarrassing.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to submit for the
Record a letter to Speaker McCarthy, Ranking Member Hakeem Jeffries,
and others signed by 11 veterans and military organizations in support
of H.J. Res. 44.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
June 7, 2023.
Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
Speaker of the House
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Minority Leader of the Senate
Hon. Steve Scalise,
Majority Leader of the House
Hon. Chuck Schumer,
Majority Leader of the Senate
Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,
Minority Leader of the House
Dear Speaker McCarthy, Leaders Schumer and McConnell, and
Leaders Jeffries and Scalise: We, the undersigned veteran and
military serving organizations, endorse immediate passage of
House Joint Resolution 44 (H.J. Res. 44) and Senate Joint
Resolution 20 (S.J. Res. 20). Congress must execute its
oversight powers under the Congressional Review Act to rein
in this unconstitutional and discriminatory overreach of
Executive Branch powers by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to wrongfully limit the use of
``pistol braces,'' and should follow up such Resolutions with
more permanent legislation to reclaim this unconstitutional
delegation of legislative powers by Congress to the Executive
Branch and limit the ability of Executive Branch to engage in
such Administrative assumption of Congress' enumerated
legislative powers.
ATF is exercising extreme Executive Branch powers overreach
in unilaterally declaring pistol braces as the equivalent of
short-barreled rifles. They are not. Instead, pistol braces
are compensatory accommodation devices for disabled U.S.
citizens to exercise their fundamental natural ``right to
keep and bear arms'' safely and securely by stabilizing the
use of a handgun where they would not otherwise have full use
of both hands.
The inventor of the first stabilizing brace for pistols was
Alex Bosco of SB Tactical, who designed and intended his
device to accommodate a friend and wounded veteran. Bosco
testified to the House Judiciary and Oversight and
Accountability Committees: One day at the range, an over-
eager range officer told one of my range buddies, a wounded
veteran, that he was not carefully firing his weapon. The
range officer said that because (in his opinion) my friend
was firing erratically, he had to bench his pistol from the
seated position. Because of the wounds my friend had received
in service of his country, the range officer's suggestion
made me angry, first because I did not agree that my friend
was shooting in a dangerous manner, and second, because I
thought it unconscionable that he or anyone like him should
be denied the opportunity to safely use a firearm due to
wounds received in service of the United States. This
experience led to the invention of the pistol stabilizing
brace.
The first pistol brace design was approved by ATF in 2012,
and so SB Tactical began marketing them to other disabled
veterans. In the years following, millions of stabilizing
brace-equipped pistols were sold legally across the country.
That interpretive guidance stood for almost 10 years and was
first made when now President Biden was Vice President of the
United States. But then, with less than four months of legal
sanctuary for the millions of disabled firearm owners who
relied on that decade of regulatory precedent, The ATF
implemented its draconian, unnecessary, poorly developed, and
unconstitutional gun-grab making millions of these law-
abiding citizens, including hundreds of thousands of military
service veterans disabled in the service of their country to
defend exactly these rights, criminals as of May 31st, 2023.
Now is the time for Congress to act to preserve these
fundamental rights and stop this unconstitutional assumption
of legislative powers by the Executive Branch. Because,
despite that incredibly short legal grace period, if a
disabled veteran brings such a pistol brace to a legally
operating gun range as of June 1st, 2023, and is acting in a
legal manner in all other respects, they are subject to
arrest by the ATF, a criminal fine of $250,000, and
incarceration in federal prison for 10 years--all because
they wished to more safely and securely exercise their
inalienable rights to keep and bear arms.
And while ATF lamely claims there are adequate safeguards
for ``legitimate'' use of pistol braces, those safeguards
contained in ATF's Final Rule ATF 2021 R-08F, are wholly
inadequate and barely conceal ATF's apparent underlying
desire simply to outlaw pistol braces without so blatantly
doing so. In fact, those ``accommodations'' only apply if a
veteran has not turned their pistol over to the ATF,
registered their firearm with the federal government,
destroyed their lawfully acquired pistol, or rebuilt their
firearm such that it is no longer handicap accessible.
Instead of complying with this rule, many gun owners and
organizations opted to fight for the right to have these
handicap-accessible firearms. Now, veterans who did not
comply with ATF's rule and who are current members of the
organization who sued the federal government in State of
Texas and Gun Owners of America v. Garland, Mock v. Garland,
SAF v. ATF, or Britto v. ATF are protected from this Rule
because four federal courts ruled that these plaintiffs are
likely to succeed in their lawsuits and have enjoined the ATF
from punishing the plaintiffs for not rebuilding,
registering, destroying, or turning in their pistols.
Still, other veterans who have sued the federal government
in different lawsuits have not been granted an injunction
yet. Rick Cicero, who ``lost two limbs while serving his
country in Afghanistan'' and ``cannot fire certain pistols
without a stabilizing brace'' has yet to receive a ruling
from the Eighth Circuit as to whether he is protected from
the Biden Administration's new rule. No one should have to
join an organization or file a lawsuit to have their firearm
ownership rights protected from a federal overreach, and so
therefore now is the time for Congress to act to restore
these protections to all Americans.
Indeed ATF's actions disproportionately impact disabled
veterans, as 27 percent of those veterans, and 41 percent of
post-9/11 veterans, suffer under at least one service-
connected disability. And with almost half of the country's
19 million veterans owning firearms (as compared to 30
percent gun ownership by the general population), the ATF's
action disproportionately and discriminatorily impacts
disabled veterans, which ATF did not adequately investigate
nor consider in its Final Rule. Fortunately, Congress has the
power to reclaim its Constitutionally enumerated legislative
powers from this Executive Branch overreach.
And while such proscriptive restriction of ATF is supported
by the federal courts, those courts do not have sufficient
power to prevent Executive Branch overreach. Yes, the Supreme
Court did decide in District of Columbia v. Heller the
individual right to have a pistol at home. And, a Seventh
Circuit Court affirmed that banning pistols equipped with
stabilizing braces violates the Constitutional protections
against undue restrictions
[[Page H2833]]
of that individual right to keep and bear arms because:
braces are needed by certain individuals with disabilities to
operate a firearm. Thus, arm braces are an integral part of
the meaningful exercise of Second Amendment rights for such
individuals and can also be considered an ``arm.'' . . .
[because i]t is uncontroverted that law-abiding members of
society, including the elderly, infirmed, and disabled, have
the constitutional right to arm themselves for self-
defense.''
But those Court decisions are insufficient to protect these
gun rights for disabled veterans because they still allow ATF
to exercise arbitrary and capricious Executive Branch power
to define the specifics of a crime (which is clearly a
Legislative power), prosecute it on their own recognizance
based upon those non-legislatively defined crimes, and then,
effectively adjudicate what constitutes a deprivation of
fundamental liberties and property without due process by a
judicial court. Only Congress can restrain this
unconstitutional Executive Branch power grab, and that is why
the immediate passage of Congressional Review Act resolutions
to strike down these impertinent actions is needed.
We stand ready to assist you in its House and Senate
passage and to engage the Biden Administration as to why this
is not the time to veto a resolution which so clearly
protects disabled veterans' rights.
Very Respectfully,
National Defense Committee, The Ranger Leadership and
Policy Center, Arizona Veterans, US Army Ranger Association,
Naval Enlisted Reserve Association, Worldwide Army Rangers,
Sea Service Family, Foundation, The 75th Ranger Regiment
Association, The Gallant Few, American GI Forum, and Three
Rangers Foundation.
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
The REINS Act, which I would argue is the most important part of
these five bills, is here, and we are debating it today because my
constituent, Lloyd Rogers--who grew up in an orphanage in Kentucky,
where he met his future wife in that same orphanage--sent this idea for
this bill to his Congressman who preceded me.
Lloyd Rogers served in the Army during the Korean war. Then he came
home, and he served as a county judge executive. He was shocked when he
was trying to serve the people in his community at how many of the
rules and regulations that tied his hands were never passed by
Congress. He wrote this bill, and he sent it to his Congressman.
By the way, he and his wife were married for 65 years, and Lloyd
turned 90 on Saturday. He is watching this debate.
This is how our Republic is supposed to work. Laws aren't supposed to
come from unelected bureaucrats with no accountability. They are
supposed to be ideas that people in our communities have that would
make their lives better, and then we are accountable to them, so when
they talk to us, we have to listen. They can throw us out every 2
years. Maybe they should throw more of us out every 2 years.
Lloyd came to his Congressman and said, please, put this bill on the
floor. It went to legislative counsel. The Congressman introduced this
bill, and it has been very popular. It is one of the most popular bills
among the American people because they know the structure of our
government intended by our Founding Fathers was for us to write the
laws and for the administrative branch to execute the laws, not to
write them themselves.
Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this rule, which contains five bills
that I urge the passage of.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An amendment to H. Res. 495 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 7. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the
House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the
resolution (H. Res. 178) affirming the House of
Representatives' commitment to protect and strengthen Social
Security and Medicare. The resolution shall be considered as
read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on
the resolution and preamble to adoption without intervening
motion or demand for division of the question except one hour
of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means or
their respective designees.
Sec. 8. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H. Res. 178.
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by 5-
minute votes on the adoption of the resolution, if ordered, and the
motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 3099.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 216,
nays 209, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 249]
YEAS--216
Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bean (FL)
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Brecheen
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burchett
Burgess
Burlison
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Chavez-DeRemer
Ciscomani
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Crane
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duarte
Duncan
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Ezell
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flood
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garbarino
Garcia, Mike
Gimenez
Gonzales, Tony
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Harris
Harshbarger
Hern
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Houchin
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunt
Issa
Jackson (TX)
James
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kean (NJ)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kiggans (VA)
Kiley
Kim (CA)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaLota
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Langworthy
Latta
LaTurner
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Lesko
Letlow
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Luna
Luttrell
Mace
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McHenry
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Molinaro
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Moran
Murphy
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ogles
Owens
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Santos
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Strong
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Orden
Wagner
Walberg
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (NY)
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zinke
NAYS--209
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bowman
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Bush
Caraveo
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Casar
Case
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crockett
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Davis (NC)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dingell
Doggett
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fletcher
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Frost
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Garcia, Robert
Golden (ME)
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gonzalez, Vicente
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jackson (NC)
Jackson Lee
Jacobs
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Landsman
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Lieu
Lofgren
Lynch
Magaziner
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McClellan
McCollum
McGarvey
McGovern
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moskowitz
Moulton
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Nickel
Norcross
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
[[Page H2834]]
Peltola
Perez
Peters
Pettersen
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Raskin
Ross
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan
Salinas
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sherman
Sherrill
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Spanberger
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Swalwell
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
NOT VOTING--8
Bost
Carter (TX)
Casten
D'Esposito
Finstad
Gottheimer
Sewell
Turner
{time} 1406
Mr. PAPPAS and Ms. HOULAHAN changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 218,
noes 209, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 250]
AYES--218
Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bean (FL)
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burchett
Burgess
Burlison
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chavez-DeRemer
Ciscomani
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Crane
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duarte
Duncan
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Ezell
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flood
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garbarino
Garcia, Mike
Gimenez
Gonzales, Tony
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Harris
Harshbarger
Hern
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Houchin
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunt
Issa
Jackson (TX)
James
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kean (NJ)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kiggans (VA)
Kiley
Kim (CA)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaLota
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Langworthy
Latta
LaTurner
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Lesko
Letlow
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Luna
Luttrell
Mace
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McHenry
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Molinaro
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Moran
Murphy
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ogles
Owens
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Santos
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Strong
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Orden
Wagner
Walberg
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (NY)
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zinke
NOES--209
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bowman
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Bush
Caraveo
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Casar
Case
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crockett
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Davis (NC)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dingell
Doggett
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fletcher
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Frost
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Garcia, Robert
Golden (ME)
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gonzalez, Vicente
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jackson (NC)
Jackson Lee
Jacobs
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Landsman
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Lieu
Lofgren
Lynch
Magaziner
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McClellan
McCollum
McGarvey
McGovern
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moskowitz
Moulton
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Nickel
Norcross
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peltola
Perez
Peters
Pettersen
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Raskin
Ross
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan
Salinas
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Spanberger
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Swalwell
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
NOT VOTING--6
Casten
D'Esposito
Finstad
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Turner
{time} 1416
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have
voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 250.
____________________