Transcripts For CSPAN House Judiciary Committee Votes On Gun Legislation - Part 1 20240707

>> thank you, everybody. we will begin in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. [gavel banging] we will declare recess at any time. the chairman postpones further proceedings in the question of approving any measure or matter or adopting amendment for recorded votes. before we begin in earnest, i want to wish our colleague, lucy mcbath, a happy birthday. i would like to remind members we have established an email address for circulating amendments or other materials that members might want to take as part of the markup. if you would like to submit materials, send them to the email address distributed to your offices and we will circulate the materials to the members of staff as quickly as possible. i ask all members, those in person and remotely, to mute your microphones when not speaking. this will prevent feedback and other technical issues. you may unmute when you seek recognition. i call up hr 7910, the protecting our kids act and move the committee report the bill favorably to the house. >> hr 7910 to amend title 18. >> without objection, it open for amendment at any point. i will recognize myself or an opening statement. he days since the shooting at the market in buffalo, new york, in the days and nights since the shooting at robb elementary school in uvalde, texas, and in the last few hours of we have learned of more deadly gun violence in the tulsa, oklahoma, medical office building, i turn to a particular teaching in the talmud. whoever takes one life, it is as if he kill the entire world, and whoever saves one life, it is as if he saves the entire world. every life is precious. may that be the measure of our work here today. when we think about the children in uvalde, 9- and 10-year-olds a few days short of their summer vacations, let us think about the whole world that was snuffed out when each of them died. as we address the scourge of gun violence, which killed 45,000 americans in 2020 alone, let us remember there are no perfect solutions. we are painfully aware we cannot do enough today to save all of these life, but that each life we save is an entire world. h.r. 7910, the protecting our kids act, links together important, sensible, overwhelmingly popular proposals that will help us to scale back the scope of gun violence in the united states. representative anthony brown has raised the age act to raise the lawful age to purchase an ar-15 semi automatic assault rifle from 18 to 21 years old. in the deeply red wyoming, the state with the most guns per capita in the union, this is already the law with respect to many firearms. i note with great sadness that the suspected shooters in both buffalo and uvalde were only 18 years of age. representative kelly's prevent gun trafficking act would establish new federal offenses for gun trafficking and straw purchasing. a problem she has as familiar with in chicago as we are in new york. we have a vast majority of firearms used in criminal activity transported into the city from out-of-state. the untraceable firearms act would ensure that ghost guns are subject to existing federal firearms regulations. a deadly weapon is a deadly weapon, even if you build it from a kit in your garage. a trio of gun store proposals, representative rosa delauro's law, representative elissa slotkin's safe gun safe kids act, and representative sheila jackson lee's safe storage act, would establish voluntary best practices for safe firearm storage and award grants for firearm storage assistance programs. there are nearly 400 million firearms in america today. we should at least ensure that they are stored safely and away from our children. representative dina titus is closing the bump stop blue call act, which build on existing regulations on the manufacture, sale, or possession of bump stocks for civilian use. remember, it was the trump administration that first enacted this ban on devices that essentially converts semi automatic weapons into machine guns that serve no purpose other than to maximize carnage, as we learned when they were used in the deadly shooting in las vegas that killed 58 people in 2018. finally, the keep americans safe act would ban the sale, manufacture, and even illegal possession of gun magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. high-capacity magazines are designed for mass killing. they have been the accessory of choice for some of the bloodiest shootings in our history, including the 2007 shooting at virginia tech and the 1999 shooting at columbine high school. i am reminded that the shooter in aurora, colorado, in 2012 murdered 12 people, but not the entire movie theater, only because his 100-round magazine jammed during the shooting. at the outset, let me say that each of these proposals is wildly popular with the american public, although that has not stopped many republican officials from speaking out in recent days against passing sensible gun safety legislation. because we know from experience that few events expose the emptiness of the gun lobby's rhetoric like the mass murder of schoolchildren, allow me to rebut some of my republican colleagues' arguments in advance. nobody seriously believes that hollywood or video games are to blame for the epidemic of gun violence in america. our children watch the same movies and play the same games as children in canada and england and japan, but only in the united states do we ask the parents of elementary school children to stand in line so we can match their dna to the remains of their children, because only in the united states is awash in 400 million guns. we said that these deaths were caused by a lack of mental health care. i agree that we need to do more for those in our communities who may be in crisis. i hope that you will join me the next time we are asked to fund such initiatives. i suspect many of my republican colleagues will not. i note again that other countries have people who are just as sick as sick americans, yet those countries do not experience the gun violence we do here. they say it is too soon to take action, that we are politicizing these tragedies to enact new policies. it has been 23 years since columbine. 15 years since virginia tech. 10 years since sandy hook. seven years since charleston. four years since parkland and santa fe and the tree of life synagogue in pittsburgh. it has been three years since el paso. it has been a week since we learned again that gun violence can reach any of our children or grandchildren at any time, and no number of armed guards can guarantee their safety. it has not even been 24 hours since the last mass shooting, and who knows how long until the next one? too soon? my friends, what the hell are you waiting for? you say that none of the solutions proposed. gun violence in america--none of the solutions proposed will stop gun violence in america. sadly, i agree. it will not save every life lost to gun violence this year, but it will save some. it might've saved those children in uvalde, and whoever saves one life, it is as if he saves the entire world. the american people are begging for us to address this crisis. let is not wait one second longer. i urge my colleague to support the protecting our kids act, and i yield back i recognize the ranking number of the judiciary committee, the gentleman from ohio, mr. jordan, for his opening statements. rep. jordan: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, life is precious, especially the lives of children. what happened in uvalde, texas, is tragic, it is every family's worst nightmare. our hearts go out to the uvalde community, and especially to the families who lost loved ones last week in this evil act of violence. and a force that is what happened--there is what happened yesterday in tulsa and a few weeks ago in buffalo, and our hearts go out to those families as well. no one wants another tragedy. no one wants the stamp again. that is what is regretful that democrats have rushed to a market today in what seems more like political theater than a real attempt at public safety or funny solutions. the democrats never once reached out to us to seeking out before the legislation we are considering today. protecting children is not a republican or democrat issue. democrats cobble together a packet of measures. this is not a real attempt, in my judgment, to find solutions. everyone here knows the reality, democrats are in control of the house. anything that you and speaker pelosi want to pass, you can pass, and you have passed numerous bills related to firearms this congress. because those bills are radical attempts to legislate away secondment rights of law-abiding citizens, the senate has not taken up the legislation, just like it won't take up this bill. what we're doing is designed to appeal to democratic primary voters. the bill won't make our schools safer, it will hamper the rights of law-abiding citizens, and it will do nothing to stop mass shootings we need to get serious about understanding why this keeps happening. democrats are always fixated on curtailing the rights of law-abiding citizens rather than trying to understand why this evil happens. until we figure out the why, we will always mourn losses without fixing the problem. our job is to figure out the why. the bill that democrats are putting forward today does not help us understand what is driving some young men to commit these heinous acts. the bill before us is shortsighted and not solutions-oriented. it is a one-size-fits-all approach that punishes law-abiding citizens while doing nothing to make our community safer. we all want to keep children safe in school, but this bill wouldn't do that. this is just another democrat attack on the second amendment, and it is likely just the start. president biden has said he wants to ban all 9mm handguns. where does it end? the american people expect and deserve more from us than political rights that rehash old ideas and don't actually solve the underlying problems. mr. chairman, we can do better than this. i yield back and look forward to the debate on the legislation. rep. nadler: without objection, all other opening stamens will be included in the record. i now recognize myself for purposes of offering an amendment. the clerk will report the amendment. >> amendment in the nature of a substitute h.r. 7910 offered by mr. nadler of new york. rep. nadler: without objection, the amendment will be considered as read, considered as based text for purposes of amendment. i will recognize myself to explain the amendment. the amendment makes only cosmetic changes and makes no substantive changes to the bill. i urge all members to support it. i yield back a balance of my time. are there any amendments to the nature of the substitute? what purpose does ms. jackson lee secure condition? the ladies recognized=--the lady is recognize. rep. jackson lee: a humanist before this hearing, i spoke to--a few minutes before the hearing, i spoke to mr. garza. i spent time with mr. garza in uvalde this sunday. amerie, just a baby in fourth grade, dialed 911. she may have saved or tried to save many lives. in the pillage, carnage, and death, what was to be a wonderful ending of her fourth year in school. she nabbed that opportunity. mr. garza lost his only child. he pleaded on behalf of broken parents, many of whom could not speak, for us to do something, for us to do something. look at the faces. these are not class graduation pictures. they are dead children. just like the dead grocery store shoppers in buffalo, or the people simply seeking a medical appointment in tulsa. this has been decades of work for many members around this table, including myself. chairman, h.r. 7910, protecting our kids, is a combination of humanity, courage, decency, and action. i'm holding the constitution, i don't see a match that lit the constitution that extinguish it. i don't see any elimination of the second amendment that needs a constitutional process to even address that question. i ask the nra, mr. wayne lapierre, meet with us. we are in a crisis of death. we have a war on the children of america. i, for one, cannot stand any stupor of stupidness. i believe it is crucial that what we did some years ago, sit on the floor of the house when we were in republican-controlled, after sandy hook, just to do something. and here we are again. now remember the words of john lewis, who said "where is the heart of this body, the congress? where is our soul? where is our moral leadership? where is our courage?" from columbine, for which i served at that time on the columbine task force, to the countless numbers of children that have died because guns have not been stored or guns do not have a device as the storage bills reflect, this is the question of whether or not we as americans are blind. do we only see the power and money of gun manufacturers? are we not sensitive to boulder, atlanta, tree of life, marjory stoneman douglas, las vegas, san bernardino, gilroy, garland, washington navy yard, sandy hook alum entry, virginia tech, immanuel african methodist church, santa fe in texas, near my district? el paso, if i did not mention it. some today are reminded of the great and outstanding work of -- of my colleagues. i thank you. you have introduced these bills over and over again and now have an opportunity to discuss how important your legislation is. but we are not finished. the assault weapons band is a necessity. a seven-week waiting manufacturs that give civil liability is a necessity. countering the cycle of violence is a necessity. i end by simply saying that kimberly vaughn died in santa fe, 17 years old. her mother is still in pain in texas. i'm calling on all of you to have a sense of humanity, courage, decency. god knows we need action, for it is a sin and shame on us, not this judiciary committee, mr. nadler. you have done great work on the house and the senate and then to the president's desk. shame on us. we can't move legislation now. i yield back. rep. nadler: the gentlelady yield back. for our purposes, mr. chabot six recognition. rep. chabot: it is honestly with a heavy heart we are pretty spitting in the markup today. words cannot express the however last week as we learned of innocent lives killed in uvalde, which adds to those killed in buffalo. [indiscernible] why we are considering this legislation today. it is only human nature to search for answers and feel the need to do something to address the situation this troubling and disconcerting. for the question we need to ask ourselves before we act, mr. chairman, is what actions can we take in a constitutionally permissive manner that will actually help make the american people, particularly schoolchildren, safer. the most obvious answer to that question is that we can take action to make our schools more secure. after the tragic shooting in parkland, florida -- former sheriff himself led a bipartisan group of members, myself included, in reauthorizing and expending the cops secure our schools grant program. that program provides necessary funds to states and local school district to strengthen security measures at schools across the country. the money can be used for metal detectors, to adopt security plans, to train school officials, to hire officers, retired police officers, and to help identify students with mental health issues. -- the students and teachers. but there is always room for improvement. it is one area where i believe we could be working together to find common ground and make students safer, and it would be immediately. i also think we can work together on methods to better address the mental health crisis that is facing so many of our nations youth today. too often the shootings that occur are perpetrated primarily by young men who feel marginalized and who appear to be suffering from some form or another of mental illness. finding a way to identify these young people earlier and to help get them the treatment that they need before the tragedy strikes is a goal upon which i think we could all agree. as i mentioned earlier, the secure our schools grant money could be used for that purpose. but as we saw in buffalo, the issue is broader than just in our schools. it was also some agreement on bump stocks, which is why the atf under president trump acted to ban that. there is still an ongoing challenge in the federal courts against this ban, which is probably why a provision banning bump stocks is included in the legislation being considered today. i understand the intention here, but i would probably -- i think it would be more effective if we allowed the court cases -- [no audio] --semi automatic rifles for those under the age of 21. this is another area where some form a bipartisan agreement might be possible. however, considering that a similar prohibition in california was ruled unconstitutional by the ninth circuit three weeks ago, it would probably be more prudent that we review that decision and try to determine what could be accomplished in accordance with the second amendment simply moving forward with a provision that even the ninth circuit thinks is unconstitutional really isn't doing anybody any good. and that is the crux of my argument against this legislation. the majority is simply acting quickly because they believe it is important to act quickly. in doing so, i'm afraid they are forgoing an opportunity to actually work together and hopefully produce a better piece of legislation, which is what they are apparently trying to do in the senate. we could do it in the house as well, as chairman, but not if the majority is so focused on the speed of the legislation rather than its merits. i think we should stay focused on the merits. unfortunately, that is not what we are doing today. i yield back. rep. nadler: the gentle man yields back. without objection, statement from representative rosa delauro , whose legislation will be entered into the record. for miss what purposes does mr. cohen seek recognition? rep. cohen this is: no rush to action. this has been delayed for decades. i was here 15 years ago when virginia tech was the site of a mass killing, and in 15 years we have not gotten gun laws changed and reformed. this bill, which is somewhat of a compilation of other laws, also have been law--all should have been law before. the democrats are not rushing anything. the public is demanding we take action because they have seen what happened and uvalde, texas, they have seen what happened in buffalo, they have seen what happened in tulsa. it is happening all too often. it is deadly. assault weapons were banned from 1994 to 2004. it was constitutionally permissible. it wasn't until 2008 and the heller decision when justice scalia said that people had a right based on the second amendment to protect their homes with reasonable weapons and said that that was not something that would prohibit government from having more restrictive laws on people with mental health problems or people who have criminal backgrounds or other possible changes in the law. the second amendment, like the first, is not absolute. the first amendment, you cannot defame people. you cannot go into a theater and holler fire. there are limits. there are limits to the second amendment. assault weapons are one of those limits we had for 10 years and during that time we had less mass killings in this country, and we should have it again. assault weapons are made to kill. the picture that ms. jackson lee had of those 19 children, the last time you or anybody would be able to recognize some of them, because when they are hit with an assault weapon, they cannot be identified. they are obliterated, and they need dna to identify. they put holes in their bodies so large that there is no way they could survive.. there are weapons of war weapons of death and weapons of destruction that we should not permit out here. and when somebody who is 18 years old right after the birthday go and one of the first things they do is by an assault weapon -- buy an assault weapon, that should be a red flag. where is that person coming from? that is what they want on their 18th birthday, an assault weapon? they've got a problem, which means we've got a problem, which means those 19 parents and their kids and their teachers have a problem. forever. the nra has too much of a grip on this congress and on the senate. it needs to stop. they are in the business of representing goni manufactures and selling guns and selling ammunition and a not caring about what it does to innocent human beings. they don't care about children. it's not just schools, mr. chabot. my friend mr. chabot talked about the school bill. yeah, it is terrible what happened in uvalde, parkland, etc., but it is movie theaters, grocery stores, everywhere in america. there is something gun- crazed in our country we need to deal with. this one stop all the killings, but it will stop some. will it stop a law-abiding citizen? sometimes maybe. will it stop non-law-abiding citizens? yes. that is what we need to see, that there are good background checks and limits on who can get an assault weapon. these are changes that our country wants and that this bill addresses. bump stocks, the issue with keeping them in the court, that is an issue about jurisdiction, not about bump stocks and the ability of the congress to outlaw them. it is whether justice can do it through rules and regular. we need to do it by law. and ghost guns should be prohibited. there is a newfangled dill across the city of memphis where they have intercepted metal parts that have come in from china that turned pistols into semi automatic weapons, into fully automatic weapons. customs and border protection in memphis have seized 40 devices recently that turned semi automatic handguns to fully automatic. that should be prohibited, too. there is something wrong in america, and this committee needs to deal with it today, and it will. i appreciate mr. cicilline's bill that does ban assault weapons. i had an amendment to do that today because it needs to be debated and enacted. but for considerations, mr. cicilline's precedent on this bill, i'm not going to operate today. we need to pass everything today and it is time our republican colleagues stopped offering thoughts and prayers but solutions and caring about the people who are dying. i yield back the balance of my time. rep. nadler: the gentleman yield back. the gentleman from arizona six or condition. the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the day after the uvalde shooting, i had the opportunity to meet with cbp chief ortiz, and also talk with marshals on the scene in that school. i happened to be in south texas at that time. it is not a tragedy. it is beyond a tragedy. a tragedy imputes some nonintentional or accidental event. this was beyond that. this was a deliberate, malicious, evil event by this 18-year-old young man. and so it is beyond a tragedy, and in most certainly does need to be addressed and needs to be investigated further. there have been multiple accounts, as they normally would be, from parents, from law enforcement on the scene, from border patrol agents, etc. i hope that we can get to the bottom of exactly what transpired there so we understand it more fully. i also expressed more than just heartfelt thoughts towards the families who were affected and the community itself was impacted by this. but i also think it is important, mr. chairman, to consider a whole host of additional pieces of information. throughout the course of the day i will submit various studies, articles, dealing with these gun shootings. for instance, mr. chairman, i submit for the record a piece entitled "chicago is that the most mass shootings since 2018. what is the solution?" rep. nadler: without objection. rep. biggs: thank you, mr. chairman. that is from cbs chicago that was discussing that post-uvalde. also, mr. chairman, another piece called "chicago had 971 shootings in the first half of the year. while violence is coming down from the pandemic peak, it is still way too high." rep. nadler: without objection. rep. biggs: thank you, mr. chairman. the left and the democrats' response to every problem is to take more control for the national government. that is why they tend to exacerbate virtually every problem without resolution. the misidentifiedy the cause of virtually every effect the misuse of guns for criminal or evil purposes is another example. williams of americans safely a-- millions of americans safely and responsibly own and use guns. the previous democrat-controlled department of justice have conservatively estimated that guns are used 1.5 million times per year to save lives. i repeat, the department of justice under democrat control and leadership, under democrat administrations, have done their studies and conservatively estimated that guns are used 1.5 million times per year to save lives. other studies have put that number as high as 2.5 million times per year a gun is used to save lives. the vast majority of the time is merely brandishing a weapon that stops the violent criminal conduct. without having to shoot. the idea that disarming americans who lawfully, legally owned guns, the idea that disarming them would produce a safer, crime free america instantly not true. i will be going into the australian studies, i will go into the 17-nation international studies as we go throughout this day. we will review again in my comments from time to time the chicago, portland, new york city, seattle, and other bastions of left-wing gun-control areas where the public is not safer because of the gun-control laws. in fact, they are more at risk. as determined, this is -- mr. chairman, this is an important hearing. i think it is premature in relationship and driven by the response to uvalde, and i understand that. but i understand that visceral reactions might overshadow the statement of facts that we need to discuss. mr. chairman, i yield back. rep. nadler: for what purposes does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? m garcia-- ms. garcia. >> move just like the last word, mr. chairman. rep. nadler: the gentlelady is mechanize. rep. garcia: for many of us in texas, our souls are crushed, but many of us are wondering why is this still happening. no, this is not rushing. no, this is not premature. 23 years have passed since columbine, and the time is now to act. enough is enough. we cannot allow another disgrace like what happened in uvalde to tear apart one more community and to tear up more families. jose manuel flores. irma garcia. uziyah garcia. xavier lopez. jayce carmelo luevanos. annabell rodriguez. alexandria "lexi" rubio. these are the names of the 19 children and two teachers, innocent lives lost. children, now angels, watching us from above to see what we are doing. one young man pulled the trigger, but we all have failed them. america failed them. and the other thousands of children who died as result of gun violence. republicans are complicit in negligence and neglected to responsibly address comprehensive gun reform. republicans are complicit in the shooting in buffalo, for encouraging white supremacy and promoting replacement theory. the republicans are complicit in the lives lost in puls florida for their homophobice and anti-human rights narrative republicans are complicit in el paso for their anti-immigrant narrative and putting gun lobby interest over people's lives. house democrats stand with the victims and the love ones. we stand to act with the people, not gun interests. we have been consistent. we are not rushing. we have already passed some bills. there are solutions, they are not premature. we have passed reforms and measures to ensure we are protecting our community. and most especially our little children, our angels. the community that was assaulted in texas was a predominantly latino community. to my neighbors in uvalde, i say this -- [speaking spanish] gracias. thank you, mr. chairman. with that, i yelled back.-- y ieldback. rep. nadler: for what purpose does the mr. mcclintock seek recognition? oh the gentleman strikes the last word. the gentleman is recognized. rep. mcclintock: thank you, mr. chairman. the slaughter of innocents is the greatest of all human crimes, and it rightly prompts soul-searching by all and woman of goodwill for causes and remedies. it is disturbing that some have used this and other recent attacks to justify partisan attacks like we just heard. and policies like before us today to make it harder for law-abiding citizens to obtain firearms, and hope that by doing so maybe someday they will become unavailable to the lawless. this overlooks the obvious, immediate action that is long overdue in his world of sin and woe. if you walk into any bank in this country, you will see at least one armed guard, whose purpose is to protect our money with lethal force. and yet at uvalde and so many other school shootings, we were not willing to protect children with the same force we are willing to protect our money. we have a second arm guard at a bank, yet the leftist outraged by the suggestion of placing an armed guard at a school filled with innocent children. when are we going to get serious and take a will as it is rather than how we wish it would be? even with those licensed to carry concealed weapons, it was against the law to bring a firearm into robb elementary school. every administered up, every teacher, every janitor obeyed that law. the only person who didn't was the madman. and that in a nutshell is the danger of gun-control laws. we have more than 50 years of experience with these laws. they are actually effective at disarming law-abiding citizens, as they were that tragic day in uvalde. they are extremely ineffective at disarming mad men and criminals, as they also were that day. they create an environment where the gunman is king. after every tragedy, politicians want more gun-control laws. we have been doing this now for 50 years these laws actually worked, wouldn't things be getting better rather than worse? proportion of households with firearms and drop significantly. shouldn't things be getting better rather than worse? meanwhile, we have not click of the obvious, the dangerously meant--neglected the obvious, the dangerously mentally ill in california alone we have thousands in mental facilities today, same proportion as in 1960. those dangerously mentally ill are out on the streets instead. gun criminals escape prosecution at the hands of woke district attorneys. hunter biden illegally acquired a handgun despite being an admitted drug addict, taken out of a trashcan 500 feet from a school. he lied on his firearms application. nobody is prosecuting him. but most obviously in almost every one of these -- ironically, just as this event happened, the very next day entrusted, west virginia-- in charleston, west virginia, a criminal with an ar-15-style rifle fired into the crowd. moments later a woman with a concealed weapons permit returned fire and killed him on the spot. you probably haven't heard of that incident because on that occasion it was a good guy with the freedom to return fire. that freedom was denied at the uvalde elementary school. if we could ban all guns from all criminals, sign me up, but i suspect there will be about as effective from keeping them out of the hands of criminals as drug laws are keeping drugs out of the hands of addicts. the difference is gun laws protect people from defending themselves. the one thing we can do with immediate effect is to ensure that every school has the same protection as your average bank and every school official with training and licensing can carry a concealed weapon if they choose. and if we are not willing to take that simple, immediate, and wholly effective step, we are obviously not serious about stopping these. i yelledback. --- y8ield back. rep. nadler: for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island wish to speak? the gentleman is recognized . >> guns have become the leading cause of death for american kids. let that sink in, the leading cause of death. for those who have said, oh, we are rushing this, more than 3 11,000 students have expense gun violence since columbine. tell the parents who lost children, tell the family members who saw loved ones slaughtered that we are rushing. the real question is why has it taken us so long. and there is one reason, we don't have republican colleagues in the fight with us. we passed two bills to strengthen criminal background checks. our ranking member described those as radical attempts to take away the second amendment. that is a bill supported by 90% of the american people. common sense, as well as closing the charleston loophole. enough with these bogus arguments about the second amendment. this is about fulfilling our responsibility to keep our constituents safe from gun violence. we have a gun violence epidemic in this country. over 200 mass shootings, 27 school shootings just this year. every one of those victims is a child, a sister, brother, parent, loved one, people we have a responsibility to represent in this country. these proposals would significantly reduce gun violence in this country. there is not a single bill we could pass that would eliminate all gun violence, but this would make sure we have to be old enough to have matured judgment before you can own an assault rifle, you can't get high capacity magazines that can slaughter at a quicker pace, tha t we end straw purchases that help criminals get guns, that we eliminate ghost guns so you cannot secretly produce a gun and do damage. they say these bills punish law-abiding citizens. what one of those bills punish anyone? even if you think it is a small burden, it pales in comparison to the burden and punishment that victims of gun violence have had to experience. so save this claim that this is just too much for law-abiding gun owners. it's just not true. we have an opportunity today, and i was hoping when we came to washington for this emergency markup in direct response to gun violence continuing to ravage our country, that we would be met with collect on the other side of the aisle who would join us in this effort. these bills have been introduced for a long time, some over multiple congresses. these are not new issues. our approach ought to be different today. we ought to work together in a bipartisan way and pass this bill out of the committee so we can demonstrate to the american people that we are committed to doing everything in our power to reduce gun violence in this country. we've heard the same tired arguments that somehow we cannot do this because the constitution prohibits it. that is also not true. the supreme court of the united states has said time and time again that the second amendment is not absolute, that congress and state have the ability and responsibility to ensure that are appropriate instructions on age, places you can bring firearms, the kinds of firearms you can possess. that is long been recognized by the supreme court fill that our republican colleagues hide behind this claim that we would love to do something, we know this is a serious problem, we extend our thoughts and prayers, and we would do more, but you know, the second amendment prohibits it. that is not true. their refusal to join us in this effort is a direct result of the power and the resources of the gun lobby in america. and the importance of the proliferation of gun sales, because that is how the gun lobby makes its money. they don't want any restrictions, any limitations on how many guns can be sold as quickly as possible to anybody who wants them. that is not the kind of america we want to live in. i think for the sake of my constituents, for the sake of young people, seniors, all victims of gun violence, we have a responsibility to do something. i hope this is the second package of gun safety bills we will do. i hope we will do more. and then it will be incumbent on our colleagues in the senate to send these bills to the president's desk. if they don't, it will be clear to the american people who is fighting for common sense gun safety legislation and who was standing in the way, and it will explain why we continue to be a country that has a gun violence i urged my colleagues to support this act and i yield back. >> mr. bishop is recognized. >> i'm going to take up the gentleman from rhode island's challenge. he said there is not any significant constitutional issue at stake. it seems to me that you would have to know. i looked at the majority staff guidance and it had one sentence talking about states having adopted bands -- >> the gentleman will yield. >> let me thicken the plot. the majority guidance says these laws speaking of bands and some states -- bans in some states, they have been challenged in federal courts. i decided to read them. the jones case from the ninth circuit, one of the most liberal circuits in the country came down last month that says california's ban violates the constitution. it goes through a long analysis and says those rights to self-defense at the core of the second amendment 18 to 20-year-olds are covered by that right. just like virtually every other right in the bill of rights. it applies to 18 to 20-year-olds. there's a case from the fourth circuit where i come from. it was vacated after being issued, but it was an analysis -- it came to the same conclusion that the second amendment applies. it said young adults age 18 to 20 had second amended rights at the time it was ratified. women undertake to do something in the words of the gentlelady from texas, isn't it incumbent on the house judiciary committee to consider to evaluate what the constitution allows congress to do consistent with the supreme law of the land? at least two parts of this post hodgepodge raise questions about constitutionality. the ban on rifles and shotguns to 18 to 20-year-olds and the provision about gun storage at home. why would there be known -- no consideration the willingness to ram through this package and the answer is we don't have any patience for you. the voices are raised, the accusations are made, the -- are complicit. let me be clear, you're not going to bully your way into stripping americans of fundamental rights. unfortunately, it follows the pattern we have discussed before. a couple of weeks ago, you rammed through a belt considering amicus briefs that were considered charitable rights -- charitable donors in violation of their rights. you did the same thing not coincidentally in california since we are talking about the ninth circuit decision. in another case to the attorney general, just last year, you blundered over that because you don't care. you're cavalier about the leak of the draft opinion from the supreme court, you want to pack the supreme court. >> if the gentleman will yield on happy to answer your question. >> you are in disregard with the ninth circuit? >> i'm bound by the supreme court and i would like to read the quote. >> the question is what the ninth circuit -- >> i don't yield you have plenty of time. your allies for mobs -- form mobs outside of supreme court justice's homes. you have to figure out something else other than stripping people of their constitutional rights. assuming that the majority entertains a discussion, we have to figure out something else. you cannot deprive young adults any more than the remainder of americans of their core second amendment right to self-defense by the purchase and possession of weapons in common. i'm out of time. >> ms. dean? >> thank you, i thank you for calling us to this emergency markup of that protecting our kids act. it is timely. we have all been clamoring for this kind of legislation for a very long time. i am stunned by some of the world -- words we are hearing on the other side of the aisle. where is the outrage over the slaughter of 19 fourth-graders and their teachers? why don't they feel an urgency to do something? i am reminded of a poem that ends do not ask for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for the. it tolls for us. we have to stop saying where was the shooting? tulsa, buffalo, uvalde, parkland. stop asking for whom the bell tolls, for whom the funeral is this week. it tolls for us. parcels are being drenched out of the society. -- our souls are being drenched out of the society. let's ground the debate in these last two slaughters. the two that were of urgency to brought us here. in 2020, 10 black people were killed in a racist mass shooting simply shopping for groceries. roberta drury, 32. margus morrison, 52. andre mackneil, 53. geraldine talley, 62. celestin cheney, 65. heyward patterson, 67. katherine massey, 72. harold young, 77. ruth whitfield, 86. it is untimely that we are here? what is untimely is being slaughtered in a supermarket by an 18-year-old with an assault style weapons that he bought himself. sort of as a birthday celebration with hundreds of rounds of ammunition. you are worried about restricting that purchase and that slaughter? and you are not worried about the untimely deaths of 10 black people in a supermarket. only 10 days later, 19 children and two teachers killed. you heard the names, but i'm going to see their first names again. mckenna, layla, miranda, nevaeh, jose, xavier, these are all 10-year-olds and 11-year-olds. task, relay out, ellie, eliana, annabelle, jackie, maite, judea, a mary, lexi, alecia, and their teachers irma, 48 and eva, 44. as we have heard, one of the children called twice at least twice said the police. -- send the police. one of the children recounted how she took the blood of her dead friend near her and smeared herself with the blood to pretend to be dead. what have we taught our children? this is on our watch. where is the outrage? i will tell my friends on the other side of the aisle who stand against these commonsense measures that it would save lives. you are way behind the curve. gun owners, americans by and large want these measures. i don't know what bubble you are living in. i guess surrounded by a powerful gun lobby trying to hold onto your seats. the america is way ahead of you. the outrage israel. we didn't learn after columbine, sandy hook. please god let us stop the shame on our country. pass these laws, say that an 18-year-old cannot go slaughter our children. or black people because they don't want white people. -- they don't like like people. join us in saving lives. we couldn't have a more important job to do. >> the gentle men from florida is iced. -- recognized. >> i don't know about the gun lobby that my colleagues referenced because i don't meet with them, i don't take their donations and i don't take donations from political action committees. i can speak for law-abiding gun owners who are very concerned about some of the bills before us. it is reflexive and irresponsible to consider bills while we're still trying to figure out what happened in some of the circumstances that you suggest animated the need for this hearing. the chairman referenced you all the in the first moment -- you've all day -- you will become a texas. when we are still considering physical plant, the points of intrusion. it is not kind or compassionate to tell people you're doing something to help them when you have no idea whether or not this legislation would do that. i would suggest that it is potentially cruel to tell people that have inspired a response to a tragedy when that response won't work. who would want to be associated with such a thing? my colleagues ask where is the outrage? i would observe that perhaps outrage isn't the most responsible way to write a bill. i heard on sunday send a chris murphy praise the florida legislation and response to the violence and parkland and while there is a lot in that legislation i didn't like, there were provisions that i think we can work on that have made schools safer in florida. for example, no longer leaving schools as gun free zones, as soft targets in many cases has improved the force multiplier for law enforcement. a florida 67 counties, 45 have opted into the sentinel program we created to get rid of the gun free zones and to allow former members of our military, tactical operators, former members of law enforcement to be there for their children to keep them safe so we don't have to relive these tragedies. there is also more training that was required mandatory rigorous in florida. that would be something we might want to think about and encourage. it is similarly irresponsible in the judiciary committee for us to ignore the jurisprudence that is happening around the country when you have the ninth circuit, the fourth circuit developing law that you can't allow someone the second amendment if they haven't reached the age of 21. i like congressman massey's legislation that says everyone on their way to vote should be able to carry a firearm to make sure they aren't subject to any intimidation. i heard my colleague strick cohen -- mr. cohen despite the fact that it would stop law-abiding citizens. what people need to hear is that stopping law-abiding citizens exercising their rights is ok even in a world in which we are not making school shootings less likely because we are not appropriately tailoring the remedy to the problem. we have ghost guns and gun tracking legislation, it seems to be gun control in search of a tragedy to latch onto to animate the desire to have more gun control. i believe the gentleman from tennessee also said it will also stop the non-law abiding. perhaps we should realize our laws don't have their own fiat. they're not in and of themselves determinative of human hate or. -- human behavior. i heard shakeel o'neil observed that in the communities he is familiar with the access to guns is not the problem. anybody can get the guns. maybe if that is true and he was speaking of nonlegal ways to get guns, maybe we should focus on the circumstances that cause these people to commit the shootings. maybe we should get rid of the gun free zones that are causing the scourge of violence and maybe we should put the victims first not through virtue signaling but through pensive thoughtful legislation. >> the gentlelady from georgia. >> we are paying for gun violence everything the day of our lives. we are paying for the weapons of war on our streets with the blood of children sitting in our schools. we are paying for unfettered access with mothers and fathers waiting in line for a dna test forced to find out that their child is riddled with bullets and maimed beyond recognition. we are paying for this deadly culture with the lives of the american people. with the lives of who we are sworn to protect. do we have the courage right here in this body to imagine the phone call parents in uvalde, texas received last week? the phone call that confirmed our fear. our singular fear that my child is dead. that i was unable to protect them because i know that phone call. turns across the country know that phone call. it is a sucker punch to my stomach every time i learned there is another phone call. a phone call that brings you to your knees when the desperation will not let you stand. that leaves you gasping for air. when the agony will not let you breathe. for days and months, years, you pray out to god in your grief. was my child afraid? did he feel the pain as the bullets through his skin? how long did it take them to die? was it quick? did he suffer customer my son jordan was only 17 years old when he shot -- was shot i amend with gun who didn't like the loud music was playing. i had dreamed of who he would become. i dreamed of watching him walk across the stage for his graduation filled with excitement for college, hope for his future, and dreams for the future only a teenager can have. the same racially motivated violence took my son, that murdered 10 black americans in buffalo is being replayed with casual callousness and despicable frequency since last week when 19 children were gunned down at their desk. we have lost over 700 americans to gun violence. less not come for americans were murdered as they worked. murdered as they tried to mend, murdered -- are we ok with this as a nation? is this the status quo that we all accept? what rights do we give our children as we bring them into this world? what rights has god given them as they grow in our homes and hearts? do we enjoy the right to study in our schools without the fear of massacre? do our children have the right to live free from the trauma that only stepping over our friends covered in blood could ever bring. do parents enjoy the right to drop their kid off at school and expect to see them come home? do we as a nation have a god-given right to live free from this scourge of gun violence, of senseless suffering, of death and despair? we cannot keep doing this. an entire generation of children are learning that adults they live -- look up to cannot will not protect them. we all agree that the status quo is unacceptable. we understand the murder of our children cannot continue and we have resolutions that the majority of the american people believe in. they are commonsense compromises that will keep american children alive. solutions to protect our kids, to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have them. to stop our neighbors from being slaughtered in our schools, churches, supermarkets. throughout this nation's history, our elected leaders have risen to the task. we have the opportunity to do this again right now as a nation. to do the right thing and address this moment in history. this is the time right now. this is the moment. it may be the only moment that we have. we are facing the challenge of our lifetime and this is the issue of our era. we must summon the courage to do what is right, the courage to protect our kids and the courage . my god, we have to have the courage to protect america. i yield back. >> mr. massey? >> today, we are debating a gun-control bill that is six bills and one. why six? because none of them work. if you take six that don't work and put them together, they are not going to work. you can't make up for ineffective else by having a dozen of them. every one of these bills is unserious and unconstitutional and suffers from the problem, the inherent problem that almost all gun control suffers from. that is, criminals do not obey the law. they do not follow the law. who here today thinks that criminals are going to read the safe storage act? that a gang member is going to say i should lock this gun up? who thinks a 19-year-old criminal is going to obey the restriction on age? nobody here believes this. these are unserious, but they're worse than that. they're going to compromise the rights and safety of individual citizens, law-abiding citizens. let me tell you a story of nikki koser who is testified. she watched her husband murdered in front of her viciously in a gun free zone while her licensed firearm was in her car outside of the restaurant. that haunts her today. they had just recently been buried and they just -- married and they just wanted to follow the law in the restaurant and he was murdered by her stalker in front of her. she went on to get the laws changed in tennessee to get rid of the gun free zone. that is one example of how the rest of these are going to fail. criminals do not follow the law. the biggest we could do that nobody on the other side of the aisle is talking about today is to quit advertising our schools as soft targets for defenseless teachers, defenseless staff, and students who are not being defended. congress itself in 1990 past the gun free school zone act. it has cost more lives than it is saved. some states have been able to override the act and create their own areas and in those states and districts where that has happened, or they have allowed qualified teachers and staff to carry, there hasn't been a single mass shooting in one of those schools. there hasn't been a single shooting of one person in one of those schools. the biggest thing we could do here today is to repeal the 1990 gun free school zone act so the default condition in this country is not to advertise every student as a target. to the point of esther cicilline who was talking about the supreme court, the act was struck down. why was that? because this document does not contain the authority to implement a gun free school zone act. congress resuscitated unconstitutional bill by putting in a provision that says as long as the gun is involved in interstate commerce. then we have the authority. i wonder if that is the case with all six of these useless bills here today because only two of them say that. two of the bills say it only applies to firearms involved in interstate commerce. does that mean the other four are unconstitutional? it means all six are unconstitutional and they are trying to save two of them with the provision that killed the gun free school zone act. they overturned mr. lopez conviction and he went on to serve in the marines. congress resuscitated it and unconstitutionally so. there is a conflict between these six bills. some of them recognize the constitutional flaw and others don't. some of my colleagues of said that assault weapons ban from 1994 to 2004 reduced public mass shootings by 40%. they make up a number a lot of times. do they know that sales of ar-15 style weapons went up in that time? it was just a cosmetic band. -- cosmetic ban. if it had an effect, what? sale and transfer of ar-15 style weapons went up in that time. i will close by saying you can't make a good law by putting six bad ones together. it will infringe on our constitutional rights and the emma kratz don't seem to care. >> mr. of georgia? >> it has been nine days since we lost 21 souls in uvalde, texas. 19 children and two teachers. we cannot ignore our problem which is out of control gun violence in america. we must lead. we must act. we must act now. acting now will take courage. each of us on this committee should call forward some semblance of courage like the courage that was on display last week by those brave border control agents who put their lives at risk to stop the carnage. in uvalde, texas. i asked colleagues on the other side of the aisle, can you put aside your thirst for power and muster the courage to stand up for our kids and against the nra? my friends history will not forget those politicians and the phony patriots who cared more about maintaining their grip on power and serving the interest of the nra and they did about taking our kids than they did about protecting our kids from gun violence. columbine, sandy hook, marjory stoneman douglas, virginia tech, uc santa barbara, the list goes on and on. none of these heinous atrocities moved congress to act. we must not let uvalde be the same. our constituents need to note that we hear from them. we will act on their behalf. the fact of the matter is that more than 311,000 students have experienced gun violence at school since columbine. this violence, this carnage cannot be what america is all about. the time for minor reforms is gone. congress must take copperheads of legislative action to stop the murders of our children. in the name of all who have perished at the end of a firearm, we must do something. in the name of columbine, we must crackdown on straw purchases. in the name of sandy hook, pulse nightclub, passive texas, dayton, ohio. let's ban high-capacity magazines. in the name of marjory stoneman douglas, buffalo, and uvalde let's raise the age of purchase to 21 years of age. the misguided pledge that some of us have of allegiance to guns and yes to the nra, it must and. it must end today and now. for the people of the united states demanding meaningful, effective action let's pass the protecting our kids act. with that, i yield back. >> mr. tiffany? >> any time we address gun violence, we should also address the state of affairs of our society. we must also address the family unit. forging the future of our society. look at the story of the young man who did so much damage in texas. none of the latter seems to get any attention from this body and the knee-jerk reaction is to always punish law-abiding citizens for the sins of the few. the answer is always to place more restrictions on the masses instead of holding the individual accountable. the problem is not addressed today. the majority instead of working in good faith across the aisle to find real solutions are now here talking about protecting our kids with a bill that does little of that. it ignores the mental health crisis in the country. it ignores the failures by the fbi and local jurisdictions in failing to act on actionable information. it ignores how the defund the police movement ignores school districts to rid themselves of school resource officers and police. it ignores the school systems trying to replace the family by withholding information from parents about their own children. this social experiment going on in our military, schools, society is tripping to the mental health crisis. the deterioration of family values, and skyrocketing violent crime rates. a question was posed i the lady from pennsylvania. -- by the lady from pennsylvania. what have we taught our children? it is a good question and it is not being answered today. unconstitutionally changing the age for ownership from 18 to 21 does little to address the root causes i have described. neither does creating a database through the irs. the irs has not had a great track record of keeping confidential information secure. moving the goalpost is often as done only gets some talking points. real solutions require reaching across the aisle and addressing all of these issues not messaging that exploits tragedies try to take away our rights and eventually have to be struck down by the courts. i think that the majority should be honest here today with the american public. you should come clean and propose the amendment which is what you truly want which is to a peel -- repeal the second amendment because that is what is afoot and has been over the decades as we have had this argument in our country for a long time. come clean, tell the american people what you want to do, mr. chairman. repeal the second amendment. i will close with this. -- garcia has been mentioned a couple of times in this hearing. god bless the young man and may he rest in peace along with all the others who perished in uvalde but i will also say his uncle who said do not politicize this, do not politicize this before all the facts are known about what went on at the school. with that, if i have any colleagues who would like the time yielded to them, i would be happy to do that. >> i would like you to yield to meet if you don't mind. i am a colleague. >> mr. chairman, i yield back. >> the gentleman from new york mr. jones. >> thank you to the chairman of the full committee for convening this markup during recess so we can advance the protecting our kids act. this is lifesaving legislation. it cannot wait. i am proud to cosponsor this bill and i am proud to support it today in committee. as the youngest member of this committee, i need to address my republican colleagues on behalf of the generations of young people whom republicans have condemned to grow up in fear that they will be gunned down at school. when i was just 11 years old, something that seemed unthinkable happened. two students killed a teacher and 12 of their classmates at columbine high school. i was afraid. all of us were. still, i had hope that by the time i was in high school, nothing like the shooting at columbine would ever happen again. i had faith that adults would step up. i never imagined that mass shootings let alone school shootings will become the new normal. that is exactly what has happened. what was once unthinkable has come to feel for many americans unstoppable. since columbine, more than 311,000 children have experienced gun violence at school. there were more school shootings last year than in any year since 1999. the year of columbine. there have been more than 200 mass shootings this year already. the leading cause of death of american children is now gun violence. behind every one of those statistics is the story of a person often a child who mattered. before we had time to grieve for the 10 people murder by a white supremacist in buffalo, new york , another gunman killed 19 children and two adults in uvalde, texas. four children are orphaned because their mother made the ultimate sacrifice not in a battle but in a classroom. their grieving father died of a heart attack thereafter. a girl named nevaeh, heaven spelled backwards is in eternal rest at the age of 10. a badge of honor has been awarded posthumously for heroism not to a police officer but to a girl scout murder trying to call for help. to the parent to mourn the children knew fear, all you have to offer a more guns. and apparently the ridiculous idea of fewer school doors. my generation and those who have followed no this epidemic is not unstoppable, it is a choice. it is a choice you can make differently a time. time after time, we have given you a chance to do something. after columbine, sandy hook, parkland. time after time, you have put your right to kill over our right to live but your selfishness and indifference have not killed our hope. you have transformed. before we do what the people overwhelmingly support. it is up to us to save ourselves from you. we did not choose this fight. we had our own dreams for our lives the same as you did when you were kids, but we can't let you get away with it anymore. enough is enough. enough of you telling us that school shootings are effective life when every other country like ours has virtually ended. enough of you blaming mental illness than defunding mental health care in this country. enough of your thoughts and prayers. enough. enough. you will not stop us from advancing the protecting our kids act today. you will not stop us from passing it in the house next week and you will not stop us. if the filibuster obstructs us, we will abolish it. if the supreme court objects, we will expand it. we will not rest until we have taken weapons of war out of circulation in our communities. each and every day, we will do whatever it takes to end gun violence, whatever it takes. what we will do is not fail the country -- the children's of this country the way you have failed us. i yield back. >> gentleman from ohio? >> now we know where they want to go. into filibuster expand the court , now we know. democrats blame guns, they criticized the nra, they call republicans names. let's be honest, they have told us what they want to do. their beef is with the second amendment. think about what this bill does. it tells law-abiding citizens when you can get a gun, what kind of gun you can get, what accessories you can get and how you have to store it in your own home. that's what this does. this is the start. we know it is the start because the first person to speak on their side said this, we are not finished. this is just the beginning. their goal is to get rid of the second amendment. joe biden said the other day. he wants to ban nine millimeter handguns. michael moore said last week. time to repeal the second amendment. we know where the democrats want to go and they don't care about the constitution. they know the age limit in this bill is unconstitutional. we just had a decision last month from the most liberal circuit in the country that said it's unconstitutional. we know the storage provisions are on constitutional. -- unconstitutional. they don't care. forget the constitution, they want to change the country and so many dramatic ways. the gentleman from new york talked about getting rid of the filibuster, packing the court. we know they want to do that because the chairman of this committee introduced a bill to pack court. the worst of it is, this bill not address the tragedies we have seen unfold around the country in the last couple weeks. it would not stop the terrible event we saw. it would not harden schools. the spokesperson for the president just said last week hardening schools is not something president biden wants to happen. it's not something he believes in. i find that astonishing, but that's what she said. this bill would not stop terrible events, it would not harden schools, but it will take away the rights of the american people who follow the law. that's what this is all about. it is so wrong. it is part of the pattern we have seen and again as mr. bishop pointed out, this is the judiciary committee. you would think there would be the proper respect for the constitution and for decisions reached by our circuit courts. no, we are so focused on taking away people's liberty. it is frightening to me when you put it all in context and you think about what the democrats are trying to do to first amendment liberties, now second limit liberties. this is what frightens the american people and that's why we should vote this down and we should come together in a bipartisan way to figure out what we can do to help make schools safe, to make sure people are properly trained, the facilities are the way they need to be. we are all for that, but we are not for taking away second amendment liberties. not like they want to do. i yield to the gentleman from north carolina. >> i think the ranking member. we must dismantle white supremacy in all aspects of our society and that means moving funding away from police departments and toward programs that improve public safety by helping to address the roots of systemic inequality. the gentleman from new york, the gentleman who just told us who he is. i believe him. except what the gentleman from new york described his annihilating the second amendment without repealing it. in the manner contemplated by the constitution. >> does the gentleman yield? >> understand what we are up against. >> will the gentleman yield? >> i yield back. >> i wasn't aware that michael moore was a democratic member of the house. the gentlelady from washington. >> we originally called this markup to make a vow to the families of the 21 people including 19 children and two teachers who were murdered last week and the 27th school shooting this year. vowed to the families of the 10 people killed in a supermarket by an 18-year-old gunman in buffalo, new york. a vow to the families of so many mass shootings who have channeled their anger and grief into pushing for action congress to take lifesaving measures by passing legislation for common sense necessary lifesaving gun reforms through the house of representatives and demanding that the senate act to stop the insanity of mass shootings that plagues our country. yet before we can have this hearing today, before the funerals have been held for those who died in texas just last night, america experienced another mass shooting at the st. francis medical building in tulsa, oklahoma. at least four people died. for people who were working to save lives. people who were parents, who left behind children printed people who should be alive today. reports from the scene detailed shooter carrying two guns. an ar style semi automatic rifle bought just yesterday. carrying those two guns through the medical building before the shootings began. hospital personnel were unable to do anything through the open carry law before the shooter began his rampage. while we don't know the details, the republicans in their never-ending pursuit to increase the number of guns on our streets and in our schools past was in oklahoma so that no permit is needed to purchase a firearm from a private individual. no waiting time is needed and no firearm registration is required in the state. in oklahoma, anyone over the age of anyone can openly carry a firearm including an ar 15 without a license or registration. weapons that can cause mass devastation are subject to less commonsense safety measures than cars or motorcycles. the children of uvalde our all of our children. the parents in buffalo and oklahoma are all of our parents. this is our responsibility. today, we have a chance to say no more. to refuse to allow our schools and supermarkets, hospitals and theaters, or public places turned into war zones where children hide terrified under desks or in closets or doctors in medical facilities don't know if they are to save a life or have their own taken away. do not tell me the answer to this is to put more guns on the streets or to militarize our schools or theaters or hospitals with metal detectors and cops. do not talk about taking away fundamental freedoms when what we are doing by refusing to pass sensible reforms is taking away the fundamental freedom for children to go to school and play and live. don't tell me the answer is just about mental health. we certainly have mental health challenges that we have to respond to, but countries around the world have similar challenges but no other modern wealthy country has these mass shootings as we do. what sets us apart sadly is the enormous number of guns and lack of regulation around guns and most importantly, the lack of political will from republicans to respond to these mass shootings. when other countries have had a mass shooting, they have responded and it has worked. in march 1996, great britain experienced the deadliest mass shooting in its history and an elementary school. the shooter murdered 16 children and injured 15 others. the british parliament banned a caliber pistols. since then, there has not been a single shooting in the u.k.. a shooting in australia occurred. australia passed sweeping reforms including banning nearly all some out of medic rifles and shotguns and implementing a to buyback firearms. since then, there has only been one mass shooting in australia. other countries have responded to gun violence with decisive action that wiped away mass shootings and meanwhile, the united states makes up 4% of the global population but close to 15% of firearm deaths worldwide. do not tell me we don't know what works. we know what works. we know that what we need to do is to pass this bill and say yes to saving lives for our children and our families. let's do what is right. >> do you yield back? >> i yield. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> and the filibuster, expand the court, take away your secondment rights, we just heard that's what the democrats want to do today. on monday, joe biden stated a nine millimeters bullet blows out of the body so the idea that these high caliber weapons is of there is simply no rational basis for it in terms of thinking about self protection. you can't protect yourself with a nine millimeter, i guess only a 22 millimeter be sufficient. then he walked back that statement and says he supports a ban on the sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. yesterday speaker pelosi stated you will have a hearing markup on an assault weapon ban. their plans and intentions are clear. they want to take away law-abiding citizens ability to take away the firearm of their choice and don't let them full you they are not attempting to take away your right to purchase handguns. they are using the magazine ban to do it. last year, the glock 19 was the highest sold handgun in the united states. it comes with a 15 round magazine. that would be banned. in front of me i have a gun with a 21 round magazine. it would be banned. here is a 12 round magazine, this would be banned under the current bill. it doesn't fit because this gun was made for a 21 round magazine. this gun would be banned. here is a 320, it takes a 20 round magazine. there's a 12 round magazine that would be banned that doesn't fit. it would be banned under this bill. here's a gun i carry every day to protect myself, my family, my wife, my home it. it comes with a 15 round magazine. here is a seven round magazine that would be lawful. it doesn't fit. this gun would be banned. >> i hope that gun is not loaded. >> on at my house, i can do whatever i want with my guns. >> this is exactly what the democrats want to do. let's look at the municipalities that have passed it. marilyn, washington, d.c., illinois, they all have the strictest gun laws in the country including limiting magazines to only 10 rounds. by comparison, and florida there are significantly less restrictions and no limit on magazine sizes. >> does the gentleman yield to a question? >> -- anti-gun restrictions that have -- freedom and the ability to carry whatever firearm we want. >> does the gentleman yield? >> no, i'm trying to get my point across. the murder rate -- let me start back over and i hope you give me my time back. jacksonville, florida the largest city by area in my state come at the murder rate was more than half of washington, d.c. or chicago in 2021 and you are four times lower -- it was four times lower than in baltimore, maryland. all restrictions with a magazine ban, you are safer than in florida where we don't have them. if you are in orlando, you are three times less likely to be murdered in florida in orange county or tampa man in chicago or washington, d.c. where they have magazine bans. you are five times less likely to be murdered and in baltimore than in orange county. the state of west virginia has some of the most gun from the laws in the country including permit list carry, no magazine restrictions for purposes of comparing apples to apples, west virginia also faces struggles. it has poverty levels comparable to nearby towns yet someone is nine times less likely to be murdered in west virginia than in baltimore and approximately five times less than in washington, d.c.. these anti-gun cities take early with magazine bans have some of the highest rates in the country . these laws do nothing to stop crime and no one thinks they will stop mass shootings. this is a push to take away your right to carry whatever firearm you please to defend yourself. i hope my colleagues in the senate are paying attention. a magazine ban will not allow you to carry these types of handguns because they don't have the capacity to take a small magazine i yield back. >> the gentleman from florida. >> mr. chairman, i just returned from traveling to visit with other governments in europe who have been receiving ukrainian refugees who have been standing up for russia. every single meeting started with expressions of sympathy. condolences, questions about how the united states continues to have this horrific problem. i thought it would be important to respond to some of what we have heard and to make clear what we are doing. to the ranking member and to mr. bishop, i resent being told i don't care but the constitution. we all do and you know it's not true. yes there is a ninth circuit decision. other circuits have come down the other way and when you refer to haller, it's important to point out the words of justice scalia in the decision when he said like most rights, the rights secured by the second amendment is not unlimited. he then went on to explain exactly how. let's be clear that what's happening first of all is -- let's talk about what we're trying to do. we already passed legislation to require a check of one's background make sure you don't have a violent history. there is no one watching thinks if you have a violent history you should be able to buy a firearm. that's straightforward. that's what we already passed. that's what the senate needs to bring and past. what's in this bill? raise the age for purchasing semi automatic rifle from 18 to 21. let's also acknowledge that in america, you can't buy a handgun unless you are 21 credit that hasn't been brought up. you also can't buy a drink or tobacco, but you can buy semi automatic assault rifle for every time someone sits in this meeting and says nothing we're doing would have prevented this, if we had a lot it said you have to be 21 to buy, these two ar-15's would not have been purchased. also, my own florida raised the age to buy a gun to 21. it's an important step that we can take. we will be voting on red flag was which florida passed. it has been used 5800 times to make sure people with violent histories don't do harm to themselves or others. florida did that. we want federal offenses for gun trafficking and straw purchases because we don't want people to feel that they are simply able to bring guns to cities that don't have restrictions, take them to other cities more tough on crime. we should all be supportive of cracking down on gun traffickers that put people's lives at risk. safe storage of firearms. if you have a child in your house, my guess is for everyone of my colleagues who owns a firearm, you store it safely. shouldn't everyone if they have a child in the house have to store their firearms safely? that's what this does. bump stocks, let's remember what they are. bump stocks in las vegas allowed the shooter to fire his gun, to do it more rapidly, to do it almost as a fully automatic rifle. president trump wanted to get rid of those. we are getting rid of them here. finally, on high-capacity magazines, all we're doing is limiting the capacity. we are not banning guns. we are not taking anyone's guns away. we're limiting it and do you know why? because when a shooter goes into a school and has to reload or goes anyplace else where there mass shootings which is everywhere and has to reload, it provides an opportunity for someone to stop him and stop the killing. i completely agree -- we should work together on a path but this is not just about schools. this is about these horrific mass shootings that happen everywhere. we should pass jamie's law to require background checks. finally, when governor abbott says there is a problem on getting meant -- mental health care, we should insert mental health care professionals until every community in the country and everyone should work together this done. this is a reasonable piece of legislation that will help to save lives. important we do it, we owe it to every family that continues to suffer as so many in my community continue to. i appreciate you bringing this bill forward to markup. >> the gentleman yields back. >> vote to strike the last word. >> the ladies recognized. >> thank you so much, my colleague from north carolina had the audacity to talk about bullying as well stop i think bullies should up in january 6 and trampled all over the united states constitution. i think bullies are trying to take away a woman's right to choose. i think bullies all over this country are gerrymandering and trying to suppress the right to vote. if you want to talk about bullies, let's talk about those things. it's been interesting listening to this discussion. as a former police chief and former negotiator and the commander of a critical incident management team, i hardly know how to describe or begin to understand why people who have the power and the opportunity to do good to make a difference just simply refused to do so come hell or high water. lord knows, we have seen hell, over and over again step whether it was columbine, sandy hook, virginia tech, las vegas, all of them are movie theaters and synagogues, the pulse night club that happens to be in my district. uvalde and as my colleague said for we can get this hearing started today, a hospital in oklahoma. we all know that law enforcement is expected to do something to respond quickly and enforce the law. guess what? we as members of congress are responsible for writing those laws. we have watched hell come time and time again over and over again and simply have failed the american people. i don't know about my colleagues on the other cited the aisle but i am certainly not proud of that. mr. chairman, is there anyone really on this committee? it's hard to tell if there is one who really believes that it's ok for an 18-year-old to purchase an assault weapon or an assault style weapon that can do unimaginable damage to the human body and also the able to purchase thousands of rounds of ammunition or anyone on this committee who really believes that that is ok? the ammunition background check known as jamie's law which might colleague was just mentioning, jamie was a young woman who saw her whole future ahead of her and lost her life it marjory stoneman douglas high school. mr. chairman, i asked my colleagues to not wait another day. let's just sit back and see who's going to be killed next. who is going to die next innate mass shooting just as we expect law enforcement to do something, with our power comes responsibility, too. the american people expect us to do something. let's not sit back and wait for the next child in this country to die in their classroom. i believe there is no country with a greater ability to protect their children than the united states. there has been several people talking about parkland so let me be clear, it was the republican led legislation who thought that children dying at parkland was ridiculous and shameful and appalling. it was that legislation that raised the issue and imposed the three day waiting time and that legislation passed red flags. somehow, through all, through all the politics we have seen today by gunfire in the classroom. they don't spend all their time in the classroom stop they go to the movies in the theaters. we will be held accountable for actions of omission and commission step may have and help us. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> the gentle 80 -- late yields back. the john mack is recognized. . >> mr. chairman, it's terribly said with happened to this country in the last few weeks in the last few years. as a federal prosecutor, when columbine happened, i was part of a group that went into the school the day after what i saw was terrible. i had young children in school and it impacted me and those with me and frankly all of america. living in colorado, i have also experienced the aurora school shooting, the aurora theater showed -- shooting up close. certainly recently, the boulder grocery store shooting. one thing i've learned from law enforcement and from being involved these particular shootings and observing what's happening in our country, these laws will not help the situation. frankly, i will vote against the bill that is being proposed. it is a problem when we tell the american people that we have solutions and we don't. we need to examine the underlying causes and i think there are some ideas that are helpful. gun free zones have been a failure. there was a dozen mirrors of the batman movie the night of the aurora theater shooting and within a few miles of where the shooting occurred, it occurred in a gun free zone and the other premieres were not in gun free zones. it's clear that disarming americans does -- is not a way to reduce gun violence. we have seen assault weapons band, it was in place for 10 years and we saw violent gun crime increase during that time. it did not reduce violent gun crime in america. these bills that have been presented would not have prevented what happened in the last three shootings and many other shootings. we have a serious problem involving families and drugs and mental health. we have gone the wrong direction and the last 40 or 50 years. we have become a less safe society generally, blaming the gun for what's happening in america is small minded. it is unfortunate that we cannot come together as a group to have well thought through legislators that want to deal with this problem. pointing the fingers at each other and saying you're only doing this because you are trying to gain political points on the heels of a dangerous shooting and for you to tell us that we are controlled by the nra, i voted against the nra when i think they are wrong step i'm representing my constituents in rural colorado. the ar-15 is used in colorado to kill reckons before they get to our chickens. it is a gun that you control predators on your ranch or farm repartee. the idea that somehow we are going to deny access, i think there are 20 million ar-15's in circulation in this country, it makes absolutely no sense. it's unfortunate. i think there are other answers. in colorado, we have discussed the possibility of incentivizing veterans who come back from the military to go into education and teach and be able to carry guns in a school. as a teacher or an administrator, as a coach, trying to help to strengthen our system step we've got to get beyond the finger-pointing. we've got to get to the point where we are holding hearings and i hope when republicans take the majority in november that in january, we will start to hold hearings and come up with answers, answers that are meaning, not answers where we tell the american public we have solved the problem and will make sure there is no guns in schools so all law-abiding step -- citizens don't have guns in schools but criminals do. we want to get to the bottom line of a complex and serious problem in this country and i hope we do in the church. it's obvious that's not what's intended and it's sad and i yield back. >> for>> what purpose does the gentleman from california raises hands? >> 19 kids are dead, 19 children are dead so to my republican colleagues, i ask, are you here for? are you here for kids or are you here for the killers? if you are here for the kids, you would do all you could to put checked the next school shooting that's about to happen and we know it will happen in america. you -- you wouldn't vote to raise the a john assault rifles, you would vote to require safe storage and you would vote to address ghost guns which are ravaging communities across america. if you are here for the killers, you would do everything to make it easier for the next school shooting to happen. mr. jordan, to say we are trying to dramatically change the country, dramatically change the country? if trying to make sure that no more kids are put in the ground with a superman coffin means dramatically changing the country, guilty. that's why we are here. kids are going in the ground today and you call that trying to dramatically change the country. why aren't you trying to dramatically change the number of dead kids going into the ground? who are you here for, the kids or the killers? my republican colleagues are here for carnival games. they say it's about mental health and they vote against it. they say it's about schools and we fund the schools and the teachers and they vote against it step they say it's about policing, 300 million dollars in the american rescue plan for community policing and they all voted against it and they don't want to listen to the police. if they listen to the police they would listen to the police chiefs who have called for background checks, red flag laws, banning him stocks and banning high-capacity magazines. my favorite is it's about the families. we need to address the family issues in america but we don't want to help feed a family. we will make it harder for its to live on food stamps. we don't want to help the family learn, we will go after teachers in america. we don't want to help kids go to college or give them jobs, we will vote against the infrastructure and jobs bill. then they say that laws don't work. but they have no problem crafting a law to take away a woman's right to make her own health decision. that law must work. they have no problem going after laws to ban drugs. there's plenty of laws but it's all about the person. they tell us we still have people in our country and they say we are in a country where we have violent video games, mental health problems, schools that cannot be secured and too many gun free zones and their solution is to put more of the most dangerous weapons into that mix. that's insane. they are also out of touch with the overwhelming majority of gun owners in america. an organization called 97% just put out a poll that said among gun owners and the only old gun owners, 86% for background checks. 76% safe storage, 67% support red flag laws. those are gun owners so who are you here for? our kids are the killers? i am here for people like alex navarro. last week after i can beat a meeting among my constituents and people like fred gutenberg and dr. joe saccharin at johns hopkins alex navarro told my constituents that her six-year-old daughter, after uvalde, after seeing the images said to her, mom, what picture will you use for me? what picture are you going to use for me? that's what children are asking their parents across america. because they don't believe they will come out alive. what picture are you going to use for me? we are supposed to be the protector's. we are supposed to be here for the kids. to my colleagues today who flew in town and came to work, got ready to argue, my question is, why did you come here at all? if you are not here for the children, why don't you go to go to the role of the killer. we are here to get things done and protect our kids. what is your job? i yield back. >> for what purpose do you seek recognition? >> i would like the last word. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i don't think that it's very effective for the children to have people on the others of the aisle coming in and accuse republicans of being complicit and murder and we put our right to kill over others rights to live. to infer by rhetorical suppose it questions, who are you here for, we must be here for the gun lobby is an outrage. how dare you? you think we don't have hearts? it's just that when we look at the things you were doing and you are trying to do to america, we have seen the carnage. heavens sake, let's take an example. democrats controlled -- control the major cities that have the worst murder rates. that's right. your ideas have been shown to get people killed. are you here for the murderers in chicago, in philadelphia, in these other major cities because you are wanting to do nationally what is being done by democrats in those big cities. we care about people, we care about their lives. and lives have been so trivialized. we cared deeply. how dear you, how dare you, you arrogant people attribute and murder to those of us that want to do things to stop it? we have seen what your ideas do. they create more murder. but look rochester, new york, these are cities that set the all-time high homicide rates in 2021. this is what you are shooting for apparently, figuratively speaking. rochester, new york had a record which is not that big of a city, philadelphia, 524 murders last year. all of these are democratic mayors. kentucky it a homicide rate, baton rouge, louisiana, st. paul, portland, albuquerque, tucson, columbus, jackson, mississippi, atlanta, new haven, as were all democrat cities they controlled and they've done so many of democrats in this committee want to do. we are not alleging you don't care, we're just telling you that your ideas have gotten people killed, not save lives. for heavens sake, you want to be arrogant and accuse us of murder and of not caring? we care and if you could just possibly get off any kind of arrogant step ladder that allows you to look down on us and look back historically. thomas jefferson was not at the constitutional convention but he said if i could change one thing, it would be to require bills to be on file for a year before they are voted on. he understood the mistakes that are made when you rush and make big decisions out of emotion. that's what we are trying to prevent so we can save lives and keep people from being killed. for heavens sake, i think back historically, we had a president in franklin roosevelt that on d-day, let the country in a 6-8 minute prayer for our troops. now, we had a president come after you vault he and he used god's name in vain. it was used as an interjection, not as a source too beg for wisdom like this country did for most of our history. since the 1960's, we have started having these mass shooting. perhaps there was something in the 1960's, maybe supreme court decisions that gave rise to people being taught in school that it's whatever you think feels good. it's time to get common sense back and to look historically about where people are being murdered at record rates and don't repeat that. that's what the democrats are trying to do. let's do common sense things that will save lives. i'm out of time so i will yield back. >> mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. i do want to respond first to mr. olmert and i'm sorry that they didn't think it was important enough to be here today but i wanted to respond to his allegations that will adelphia's homicide right -- >> will the gentlelady yields? >> no i will not. >> the gentlelady does not yield. the time is hers. the gentlelady does not yield. >> i want to respond to mr. gomer's allegation that philadelphia's murder rate is due to democratic leadership. he doesn't understand that the republican legislature for decades has blocked city leadership from passing the types of common sense gun safety laws we are considering today. to the broader question, like most americans, i am sickened and sick to death of the gun carnage we experience in this country every single day. i will not sit by idly and watch preventable tragedies play out over and over then, day after day, year after year whether his children and teachers in texas last week, the community members murdered in tulsa last night were buffalo the week before. for the more than 1000 people gunned down in philadelphia during the memorial day weekend, and cities and towns across the country, we are morning to many people whose lives have been cut short including children whose lives have barely begun. we are not helpless here. we can change this. we can pass gun violence prevention laws their constitutional and save lives. all it takes is political courage, a willingness to put americans lives above gun maker profits. over two decades ago after the columbine shooting, i rejected helplessness and hopelessness to organize members of my community to join the million mom march in d.c. since then i've supported group like moms demand action for gun safety and cease fire pa and parents who are willing to advocate for gun safety laws and 2018, i came to congress along with many of my colleagues, backed by our constituents to pass common sense gun violence prevention legislation. i'm not alone, the majority of my constituents and fellow americans have decided enough is enough as well stop they are demanding action from federal and state lawmakers. gun violence is a big multifaceted problem but doing nothing is not a solution. the profits of gun manufacturers cannot be worth more than the lives of our children, our neighbors, or teachers, our doctors, our seniors. protecting our kids act will address the key enabling conditions for gun violence and make changes that are constitutional that will make america safer. this is not about repealing the second amendment or taking away the guns are responsible gun owners. i want to remind error colleagues of justice scalia's opinion which he said that like the others right secured by the bill of rights, the rights of the second amendment is not without limits. other justices have noted the constitution is not a suicide pact. this bill is not being about pro-or anti-gun, it's about desperately needing to stop gun violence. to my colleagues who oppose each and every common sense gun safety measure, do not insult americans, our children, our teachers are the memory of those we have lost by offering thoughts and prayers with no action year after year, decade after decade. as the bible tells us, deeds without works is dead and we are here to work. do not insult americans by offering hollow solutions like turning schools into armed fortresses when you won't spend the money to remove lead from those schools. do not insult americans by advocating to arm teachers and guidance counselors and librarians when many of our schools don't have enough money to hire guidance counselors or librarians or enough teachers and do not insult americans by saying that fortifying schools is the solution when our children and the rest of us have to face the prospect of gunfire on the way to or from school and work. i refused to tell our children there is nothing we can do, that they must be sacrificial lambs to a twisted theory of arm second amendment liberties that is decoupled personal responsibility. our children know as well as we do that something can be done to stop we know it in our guts. our children deserve to learn and grow in safety and we have the power to give our kids a more hopeful and bright future. this weekend, america's national youth poet laureate, amanda gorman, offers us a poem that says may we choose our children over chaos, may another innocent never be lost. mr. chair, i yield back. >> for what purpose of -- does mr. johnson of louisiana. >> we have heard some really outrageous and even revealing things today. mr. jones said we democrats seek to abolish the filibuster and expand the supreme court and do anything necessary to do that. that's what we know this is about. president joe biden looked into a camera and said he wants to ban nine millimeters handguns. this is one of the most widely purchased and used handguns by the law-abiding citizens of this country. in 2018, john paul stevens called for the repeal of the second amendment and recent days, liberals in hollywood and on capitol hill have started to echo that drumbeat once again. error colleagues in this hearing to day claim that raising the purchasing age or semiautomatic rifles and shotguns to 21 will reduce school shootings. as has been noted, this has already been ruled unconstitutional by the liberal u.s. court of appeals from the ninth circuit when they struck down a california law that has similar restrictions on gun purchases. i will not yield. today they claim that republicans don't care about gun violence. we've heard this over and over and this is outrageous. house republicans have worked tirelessly and enacted meaningful law to put more resources into mental health and provide training for guidance counselor, fund grants for law enforcement while the other side was trying to defund it and provided money to harden schools as has been noted, president biden currently is not in favor of that idea and that just seems crazy. today, democrats have claimed that gun free school zones promote school safety but arming teachers and school administration would mean well-trained adult would be at the ready to protect themselves and the innocent children in their care. the depraved shooter in buffalo a few weeks ago wrote in his manifesto --" areas where caring a concealed weapon are outlawed would be a good area for attack, obviously. you've all the band people from carrying firearms. i interviewed for my podcast yesterday, a pastor on the ground who is ministering to the people at the west texas community who has calming presence and clear conviction in natural interviews has capture the attention of millions of americans because he has spoken to the root causes of all of this violence and bloodshed. america has a heart problem, he said and he is right. what we are seeing right now is the result of decades of decline with the secularization of american society, the old dutch open assault on religion and morality and absolutes, the breakdown of law and order. we are seeing the results of all of this on young people in clinical settings, the culture at large in our schools and it is a result of decisions we have made. a new york times survey was published yesterday and found 94% of school administrators today say students are suffering from anxiety and depression and 88% report students are having trouble managing their emotions. thoreau said there are thousands hacking at the bridges of people when they need to hit the root. a democrat bill has been sitting on the shelf and will do nothing to solve the problems. this is hacking at branches for the purpose of making a show. while the root problems remain unaddressed. that is what we should work on. that is what we intend to work on it will work on when the republicans retake the majority. we will address the causes, i would like to yield my remaining time to mr. gomer if he desires to address the false claim made about him. are you still with us? >> yes i am and i appreciate my friend from louisiana. i waited for hours at dfw airport, but there were problems with the flight, but is why i'm not in d.c. like we have heard on many other allegations, they are without basis and without knowledge, but one thing we have learned repeatedly when democrats were dutch accuser publicans of things, colluding with russia, it is often gas lighting and tells us more about what is in the conscience of the accusers. i would also remind my colleagues i did not know 2016, but when the democrats took the house floor, they obstructed an official session of congress, which is a felony and that is what many of the january 6 writers were charged with. you'll back. >> the gentleman from colorado seeks recognition. >> i moved to strike the last. >> gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would be remiss if i did not respond to my colleague mr. johnson. we have debates from time to time on the constitution and our competing views of the constitutionality of different provisions. but i have to confess i have seen republicans do something today i never thought i would see, which is praising the ninth circuit court of appeals in taking that position that a ninth circuit court of appeals decision is the final word on the constitutionality of a given provision. i have served on this committee long enough to remember my colleagues on the others of the aisle complaining about the ninth circuit euro after year and making the case that because it had ruled something unconstitutional did not mean that the statute in question was unconstitutional. in any event, i will digress. >> what the gentleman yield for a moment? >> i will yield to the chairman. >> i want to talk about the dutch and to point out that the so-called ninth circuit, the panel was composed of two trump appointees in one clinton appointed, so talking of the so-called liberal ninth circuit is historical but no longer the case. you'll back. >> thank you, chairman. the chairman makes a salient point and apparently the new standard for my colleagues on the other site of the aisle is that a singular panel decision from the ninth circuit is the final word on the constitutionality of a given statute. notwithstanding the potential on bond consideration to follow or the potential to appeal to the super import. want to say thank you for holding this emergency hearing. our hearts are broken for the children of uvalde, texas and the people of buffalo, new york into the countless americans being murdered every day in our country. as you well know, the level of gun violence in our country is not normal and we cannot stand for it. it is time, long past time, for this congress to finally act and start saving lives. my state of colorado has experienced the pain and tragedy of gun violence too often. in 1999, i was 14 years old when my high school was put on lockdown because 10 miles away, two shooters had entered columbine high school and murdered in cold blood 13 innocent teachers and students. from columbine to a movie theater in aurora to the school in highlands ranch and a grocery store, in my community, last year, where 10 innocent people were murdered at a grocery store in boulder, colorado. countless lives lost, children, parents, coloradans and americans. the high schoolers who experienced columbine are now grown up, yet 23 years later our kids continue to face gunfire in the places where they are supposed to be safe. columbine was once considered to be the deadliest shooting in united states history at the time. that, as we know, is no longer the case. from sandy hook to uvalde, too many communities have been plagued by the scourge of gun violence. as policymakers we have the opportunity to do our part in stopping this violence. we have got to do more. we have to act and today we are doing precisely that. protecting our kids act makes common sense changes to gun laws will save lives. the safe storage requirements which we passed in colorado last year, raising the age required to buy semi automatic rifles from 18 to 21, another common sense measure i have cosponsored since i came to congress, there is more that we can and must do. i will keep pushing for the same every day because older can't wait any longer, colorado can't wait any longer and our country certainly can't wait any longer. i think the chairman again for bringing this bill up for markup and i yield back the balance of my time. >> gentleman yields back, what purpose does he seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. >> you can report the amendment. >> reserve point of order -- >> it is reserved. >> amendment to the amendment and substitute to hr 710 -- >> i moved to be considered as read. >> i will make that motion. the amendment will be considered as read and the gentleman has five minutes to expend. >> thank you. as i mentioned in my opening statement, there are several ways i believe we could work together to find bipartisan solutions to this crisis and this amendment is one of those possibilities. following the shooting in parkland, florida, former sheriff congressman john rutherford led a bipartisan group of members, including myself to reauthorize -- schools program. i think somebody is on muted but should mute. >> the gentleman will proceed. >> thank you, mr. chairman. that program provides necessary funds to state and local school districts to strengthen security measures at schools across the country. the money can be used for metal detectors, for example. it can be used to adopt security plans, to train school officials, to help identify students who have mental health issues and get those students the treatments they need among other things. oftentimes, teachers can be trained both on how to identify those students who may ultimately become dangerous with or without a weapon, or also how these particular incidents are to be handled, how doors can be locked and kept locked and a range of other ways to make our schools safer. one of the additional items the grants could be used for is hiring school resource officers to help protect our schools, in particular, i think we should be looking to hire retired police officers and following parkland, i met with the head of our local fop in cincinnati. that was his suggestion and the reason i initially offered this and why have been pushing this since that time. we would like to see that expanded, not just retired police officers, but honorably discharged military personnel. they could also serve as resource officers there needed. i know for certain there are at least a handful of school districts in my district and the greater cincinnati area that cannot find any school resource officers or cannot find as many as they would like to hire because of a lack of available personnel that have the necessary training. obviously i won't name those districts or schools and expose potential security vulnerabilities, but i am sure if this problem exists in cincinnati, it exists in other parts of the country as well. fortunately, we have a fairly expensive group of highly trained security experts readily available, our retired police officers and honorably discharged military personnel. placing highly trained and professional individuals in our schools is one of the easiest and safest myth -- methods to bolster school security and no one is better equipped to handle potential school shootings then police officers and military personnel. my amendment expresses the sense of congress that more districts and others should consider employing military personnel where it is appropriate as school resource officers. hiring retired police officers and retired military personnel to provide school security is a common sense step to better secure our schools and could be achieved almost immediately. most important they, doing so could go a long way toward protecting our students who are in school to learn, not become victims. our nation schools have become soft targets for any would-be killer who has gotten access to a gun. we even advertise with a sign that the murderer to be will be the only person on the scene with a gun, like a welcome mat. we need to do a better job of protecting both students and teachers and other personnel at our schools because they are all vulnerable, from those frequently and unfortunately increasing frequent threats. adopting this amendment would be a significant step, i believe, in the right direction. it is something we could do right now and i think this is something that would make a difference because hopefully we will be, if this passes it is part of the bill, members will read the bill, members can reach out to school districts and schools in their own communities and make them aware that this money is available for them to harden the schools. i would publish something. i yield back. -- that would accomplish a thing. i yield back. >> point of order is withdrawn, i recognize myself in opposition to the amendment. this amendment is based on the belief that the way to protect students is a good guy with a gun as republicans often say to stop a bad guy with a gun, but i believe that phrase is coined by a multimillion dollar gun lobby after a shooter killed 20 children in connecticut. we have seen that is proven wrong. the republicans refused to help protect americans from people we all agree should not be allowed to possess a weapon as we are hearing today. in uvalde, there were seven good guys with guns and they did not feel they could stop that bad guy. in buffalo there -- the gunman killed a good guy with the gun. texas is filled with good guys with guns. texas laws are so pro gun lobby that companies have to swear they won't discriminate against the firearm industry. there are over 8600 federally regulated license firearms deep -- dealers and 36% of texas adults lived in a house with a firearm between 2007 and 2016. texas is filled with good guys with guns, but that could not save the lives of those 19 children and two teachers. it is time to try something new. republicans are the same people that told us more good guys with guns keep kids safe, then told us armed officers in schools keep save, and more shooter drills which all the problem -- would solve a problem, that armed officers in schools will solve the problem. each time they have been proven wrong, children have been murdered. how many children have to die before we stop taking them seriously? this amended goes in the wrong direction and i oppose it. i yield back. who seeks recognition? no one? what purpose does he seek recognition? >> strike the last word. >> the jungle is recognized. >> i understand the sentiment he is bringing to this. i am the son of a retired police officer, i have two brothers who are police officers and our law enforcement family is horrified by what happened at uvalde. it is unconscionable that police officers waited outside of the classroom as children were being slaughtered and 911 calls were being made from inside the classroom pleading for their lives. but what we have come to see across america is that our law enforcement are just outgunned. we are a country of unrestricted weaponry that continues to put the most dangerous weapons in the hands of the most dangerous people. we can hire 100,000 retired police officers, but if we are a country that has over 100 million assault rifles, they are outgunned and that is what we saw in uvalde and tragically in 2016 in dallas, texas. five brave police officers, swat trained police officers were murdered by a killer with an assault rifle. i think we have debunked the idea that the answer to a killer with an assault rifle is to have more quote unquote good guys with guns. the good guys with guns are outgunned by the bad guys we have given guns in our country. that is why we are addressing the root of the problem here with these six pieces of legislation. with that, i am going to yield to my colleague from rhode island, mr. sicily. >> i think the gentleman, i would like to add a couple of thoughts. the first is i don't think there is a single incident, to be there is one but i have not found one, of an assailant using an assault weapon that was stopped by a person with a gun. this is -- maybe one of the thousands and thousands of shootings, but the truth of the matter is school resource officers are an important response to school safety. we hired at school resource officers when i was mayor of a city, but require special training and it is supple to that up to -- it is up to local communities to decide where they want to lose -- want to use those officers. having someone who used to be in the army or a retired police officer may not be the best person to be in that position. in addition to that, i think the cops program you reference here requires the hiring of police officers. we are urging congress to violate the requirements of that program so i don't think the men that can work. this program is specifically for police officers. there are good reasons that if current police officers or current training who understand what a school resource officer does, it is not about just plunking down a law enforcement person in a school and it creates the impression that that is the source of gun violence in schools. it is not. i strongly support the chairman's position and oppose the amendment and yield back to the gentleman from california. 1 >> thank you, i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. for what purpose does he seek recognition? >> i wish to speak on the amendment. >> gentleman is recognized. >> the democrats, i don't know if they are in willful ignorance of what is happening in this country or being deceptive today, but i would like to introduce into the record a list of cases where concealed handgun permit holders have likely stopped mass public shootings from crime research.org and published may 27, 2022. >> without objection. >> i will read from this list and i will not out of time but i will try to make each of these summaries brief, because there are dozens of instances, even though the media does not want to report them, sometimes they get reported. just last week, may 25, 2022, charleston, west virginia, a man with an extensive criminal history started firing and ar-15 style firearm into a crowd. a woman who was legally carrying a gun was there to stop the attack. she shot the attacker. it ended before anybody got hurt. south fulton, georgia, may 3, 2022, a teenager start firing his gun at multiple people. there was a large number of people present at a park because of anti-violence right. south fulton, georgia, this comes from a news report. the men involved in the shootout have been cooperative and will likely not be charged since the teenager fire the first shot. after having reviewed most of the witness statements, it appears the defendant, mr. hamrick, discharged his weapon first and there was an exchange of gunfire between him and two individuals, good guys with a gun. portland, oregon february 19, 2022. homeowner allegedly confronted process depends at a racial justice demonstration before pulling out a hand gun and shooting multiple in a crowd, leaving one woman dead and several others injured. the shooting ended when a person with the group of demonstrators who was licensed to concealed carry a firearm fired back, striking the homeowner in the hip. a good guy with a gun stops a shooting. lancaster, pennsylvania, october 17 2021. sunday, october 17, four people were injured after a fight between two people at lancaster park, city center mall escalated into a shooting, a 16-year-old who was illegally carrying a gun started the shooting but it could have been worse were it not for concealed handgun permit holder. a bystander with a gun intervened in the shooting, shooting one of the participants. the unidentified bystander who legally possess a firearm had heard gunshots related to the fight between two males that knew each other. the bystander remained on the scene until security and police arrived. syracuse, new york august 21, 2021. the district attorney credited a property manager of saving the lives of several individuals after he pulled out a legally possessed nine millimeter handgun, the very gun joe biden wants to ban, and fatally wounded a man who opened fire on a crowd outside a building. san antonio, texas august 11, 2021. a woman who crashed into a parked car in san antonio westside neighborhood climbed over a vehicle and began shooting at people who came out of their homes and rushed to aid her. the armed resident fired back and shut the driver to death, ending the violence right to the neighborhood. a good guy with a gun or good gal with a gun sometimes. fort myers florida, a man who was a convicted felon illegally possessing a gun fired multiple shots into the crowd before bystander can thresh fired, when the bystander attacked, he stopped shooting and threw his gun into the parking lot, no one was injured. chicago, illinois, july 4, 2021. it seems likely if a concealed handgun holder in this case had not intervened there would've been three debts inside of just the one woman. colorado, june 21, 20 21, the attacker and two others killed in this attack, the good samaritan who was killed in the shooting in colorado, did not hesitate or stand there and think about it, he heard the gunfire, went to the door, saw the shooter and ran that direction. i want to make sure his family knows how heroic he was. mr. hurley shot him, i think i heard six shots from his gun, maybe five. police chief said he is a true hero who likely disrupted what could have been a larger loss of life. i am running out of time but fort smith, arkansas 15, 2021. zachary arnold, 26 fatally shot lois in her apartment and began shooting at other people in neighboring apartments. he used a rifle, not a concealed handgun, to stop the attack. metairie, louisiana. fed right 20, 2021 having murdered two and rooted others, the attacker intended to kill as many people as possible, the quicker spots by people with concealed handgun permits stop the attack. i can go on forever, i'm sitting this document. hopefully my colleagues who say a good guy with a gun never stops about guy with a gun will read this. >> the from texas. >> strike the last word. >> recognized. >> i look forward to working with the gentleman from ohio and i recognize the intent behind this legislation. i would offer to him that the very -- very essence of his amendment is already covered. it is -- there is already opportunity to do that. for school districts to define who they bring into their schools. i think it is worthy to take note of the fact that the robb elementary school had a good guy with a gun that was nowhere to be found. tragic. i think it is worthy to understand the good guys with guns can wind up killing, like a little girl going to dinner in houston and some good guy who was robbed way out of the way began to chase her vehicle driven by her dad and shot at it . she is dead. so no matter how we try to circumvent or protect our kids, good guys with guns that can already be handled by school districts and other entities clearly is not the answer. why are we running away from the crux of the matter? why are we running away from 19 dead children and two beloved teachers and her husband? who just died of a broken heart? why are we running away? from buffalo, white's premises, hatefulness and a good guy with a gun which has been mentioned? there was body armor and an automatic weapon. why are we running away from this style of weapon as being unnecessary on the streets of america? why are we running away from bump stocks that help kill 59 in las vegas? why are we running away, or am i to not be concerned about my officers, hpd? this is a real ghost gun that shot my police officers in houston. why are we running away from this? i appreciate the gentlemen's efforts, you will hear me again. the police have told you that what we are doing is correct. major chiefs band bump stocks, reinstate the assault weapons ban, ban high-capacity magazines. everything we are intending to do. my friend in ohio said we are not finished, you are absolutely right. we are planning this, not hysteria. i am standing on good ground, siding with justice scalia in a case because he indicates there is no unlimited use of guns. he clearly said for the opinion, along with miller, find support and historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. these are dangerous and unusual. someone asked me, are you against all assault weapons? there is a long list in the legislation we are thinking about that are exempted. it is not all of them. that is why i argue for a seven day waiting period on automatic weapons. but it is good for my other friend from ohio. to talk about what schools need to do. they are going to be looking at schools. there is a long document i will hold up about school security we have already put forward on the federal level. they have a monster load of plans. but a good guy with a gun was missing in action at the elementary school, as the parents were crying. a mother said she was blocked from going into get her children. she went around the school and broken. we will get more facts about that, but the issue is there are tools. why are we sidestepping the crux of our problem? the fact that guns are not stored, that there are ammunition that should be restrained, the fact that we have trafficking, that the age is ludicrous and that is why the parents have asked me over and over why was an 18-year-old getting a gun? the grandmother who saw this child get it, his gun was not stored or locked up, maybe he bought it, but maybe the parents should have had the key. or maybe when he bought it there should have been devices for storing. again, i am not going to say anything about the amendment other than it can already be done, and it is not the crux of what we are doing today. mr. cap sent out a message for them to utilize existing law, but you are moving away from what we are dealing with, the killing with these guns, ammunition, needing to pass the protect kids act, we need to pass it now. >> the lady yields back, what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> -- >> he is recognized. >> i yield back to the gentleman. >> i think the gentleman. good guys with the guns were talking about our retired police officers, the most highly trained people with weapons the community can have, people we have trusted to keep us safe, keep our families safe in the past, generally for 25 years or so. these men and women retire oftentimes in their early 50's or so and are able to work. many of them worked 15 or 20 years. it seems to make sense that places, i think we all agree, we need to protect schools and most importantly the precious lives within those schools, both the students and the teachers, that you have the most highly trained people to protect them and that is police officers. we have expanded it to also retired and former military personnel who were honorably discharged. you can have people involved in the military that have problems as well and if left under on honorable circumstances, we are not talking about those folks. we are talking about folks, police officers and military personnel, that our tax dollars have paid for to train to have this expertise. why not use this expertise for a decade or two to protect the most important resources we have in this country, our children? i am a former schoolteacher myself, i taught the seventh and eighth grade in an inner-city school. it has been quite a few years ago and we were fortunate we did not have one of these types of incidents occur while i was a teacher there. most schools don't have that happen, unfortunately, far too many do. when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle proposed today are a number of items, many of them ultimately declared unconstitutional, where most identical cases have already been declared to be unconstitutional, yet that is where they are pushing ahead. i am suggesting that we make it more -- that we let people that can get these folks to project -- protect our children within our schools, give them more information, make it more known to them that this is available. and that these resources are there. there are other things we can do to protect children in the schools, it is not just police officers. that is an important part, but there are other parts and i want to complement john rutherford, a former sheriff, one of our colleagues in florida who had a lot of experience in this area as former law enforcement himself, for pushing not just the police officers but also metal detectors, as an option. more training for the teachers to try to identify those troubled students who might somewhere down the road participate in some sort of incident like this where they target fellow students or younger students, or anybody for that matter. so that makes sense. it also makes sense to train our teachers and administrative personnel, but when you have a circumstance like this happening, what is the best way you can do to save lives? all of those things are important. those are things we can and are doing right now, but we can do a lot more. i would suggest my colleagues, rather than imposing this, -- opposing this, which could make a difference, i say you adopt this and there is something good in this bill. i am willing to discuss some of the other things my democratic colleagues have proposed here but as a package i don't think it is helpful. it focuses on we have done something, but i don't think it is going to make anybody any safer, especially since a lot of it is going to be probably thrown out as being unconstitutional in any event. we know this is constitutional and tax dollars are already going to this. let's let schools be more aware. -- >> -- we stopped the clock. now you can be heard. ok, proceed. >> i am not sure exactly where he dropped off, but i pretty much concluded, i would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this commonsense amendment and i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back, what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? >> strike that last word. >> gentlelady is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my heart goes out to buffalo, uvalde, tulsa and the communities like my own of el paso, communities that have suffered the carnage and trauma of gun violence. i have been listening to my republican colleagues on this committee for the last two hours as they try to rationalize their inaction and unwillingness to support our legislation. i would like to speak directly to the american public. let us be very clear about what the two sides are arguing for. republicans are trying to convince you that anyone who wants it done should have unfettered access to one, whether you want to take a weapon of war into a state that outlaws them, whether you want to be armed with a ghost gun or whether you're an 18-year-old who wants an assault style weapon but who is not even old enough to drink. we are hearing it over and over this morning. they believe the only way to change gun prices is by flooding our neighborhoods with guns. if you want a glimpse of the dark vision they have for america, look at texas, a perfect example of what they want. after the slaughter in el paso, governor greg abbott rummaged to change our laws and he did. he loosens them in order to move closer to the dark vision the republican party has america -- for america. the age for access to certain guns was lowered from 21 to 18. in texas, you can now open carry. in texas, you don't need training. in texas you don't need a license. this is in texas, where law enforcement bags the state not to do this. where many school districts have their own police force already, including the school district in uvalde, probing stop a bad guy with a gun, especially in that fat has high-capacity magazines and an assault style weapon. the guns my republican colleagues what in our neighborhoods don't just peers flesh. they just -- pierce flesh. they destroy it. they shatter modes -- bones and their mission is of an america where everybody has a gun. you heard my republican colleagues describe the wild shootouts across america as though he is perversely proud. the other solution they want is to ensure every public location is hearted and we continue on the spiral of violence that is as unique to america as these deadly gun laws. not only did none of greg abbott's loser gun laws prevent or mass shootings in texas. his approach has hastened them. my republican colleagues will continue to blame everything else, mental illness, video games, single parents, the list goes on and on. but what is the common denominator in gun violence attacks? it is guns. democrats are not asking for anything unreasonable and in fact we are following the lead of the american public. i am following the lead of the majority of my constituents, as well as the victims of gun violence after the august 3, 2019 shooting in el paso. people have told me over and over again they want us to do our job. americans are tired of their children dying. they are tired of being afraid of going into grocery stores, outdoor concerts and now hospitals. to my republican colleagues, look at texas, estate that has tried it your way. there is blood everywhere. to the american people, there is an extremism that has gripped the republican party. they are addicted to it, they are slaves to it. they post ghoulish photos of themselves with weapons of war and use it as their christmas card. they photographed their children with those weapons. they participate in congressional hearings virtually adorned with them. as they continue with their destructive behavior, and is up to serious legislators to listen to the public, do our job, make people safe. i would love for republicans to join us, but when they do not, the american public must take heed of which party protects them, protects law enforcement and protects their children, and which party chooses the ghoulish obsession over all else. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> gentlelady yields back, what purpose does mr. big seek recognition? >> district less work -- district -- to strike the last word. i remind the lady that the crux of the hearing is to protect children at schools. i think that is important and the reason the amendment is so important and the reason i supported is because it does get at the crux of why we are here today, where is the six bills that rolled into the democrats bill today does not get at that. this simply does not get at that. when you add retired police officers and honorably discharged retired veterans to the folks that can come in and help defend schools, you are actually increasing the likelihood that somebody who wants to attack them will be deterred, as mr. johnson of louisiana really is the recited today, the manifesto written by the shooter from buffalo said he was effectively looking for gun free zones. what is school police officer presence would do is provide deterrence and that is the crux of what we are talking about here today. how do you deter criminally violent people from going in and committing mass shootings and murders? it seems to me perfectly rational to adopt the amendment. i will add to some of the times that people do stop people with guns do stop bad people, criminally evil people from committing heinous crimes. the department of justice has done studies and one of their studies said that on average, about 1.5 million times a year, people with guns stop violent, heinous acts. in other ways -- in other words, they deter and have saved lives. they deter violence and have saved lives. that is what the amendment gets to. i think of a guy named stephen williford, the guy who stopped the mass shooting in texas. i had a chance to visit with him and several other members of congress. he said his biggest regret was that he -- it took in 30 seconds or so to get his weapon out of his gun safe to go over and engage the demonic gunman at sutherland springs. he believed, had he been able to get there even 30 seconds sooner, he would have saved four or five lives. that is important, to put these things in context. the reality is we know that people with guns and the presence deters bad actors. does a all bad actors, no. but it does deter bad actors and it deters angry, malevolent people with murderers intent. that is why the amendment is so important. it adds to and expands the pool of people who are qualified to come in and help defend our schools. if the crux of this is to deter people who will shoot up schools and provide safety, and i believe that is what we are talking about here today, this amendment is wholesale and hold on and should be adopted. but if the crux of the hearing is something different, the way the gentleman from new york was talking about, and several others have talked about, it is ultimately to lay the predicate for taking away the second amendment and taking away guns, whether they be in ar-15 or a nine millimeter handgun, that is an entirely different matter and should be resolved in a different hearing. but if you are talking about deterrence, the amendment should be adopted and that is why i supported. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back, to what purpose does mr. johnson of georgia seek recognition? >> moved to strike the last word. >> thank you. >> we are here for the kids, talking about protecting our kids from out-of-control gun violence in america. it was almost 10 years ago, zimmer 14, 2012 -- december 14, 2012 when sandy hook took place. it 20-year-old armed with an assault weapon murdered 20 children between the ages of five and six and killed six teachers. at that time, the head of the nra, wayne love here -- wayne lapierre muttered words were publicans continue to march to today, the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. it has not worked in the schools since sandy hook. i watched last week, the nation watched a press conference, governor abbott of texas recounting what allegedly occurred at the school. where 19 children, 19 more children murdered by guys -- a guy with a gun. an 18-year-old. and governor abbott was interrupted by my former colleague beto o'rourke, who was just frustrated at what he was hearing. the governor was not telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. he talked about the governor, that there was a school resource officer, a good guy with a gun, who tried to stop the bad guy with the gun. but that turned out not to be true. it was actually 19 good guys wearing white cowboy hats with guns. and they were not able to stop that 18-year-old with a more powerful weapon the one they had. so today, we are talking about reining in this out-of-control gun violence, which prevents our children from being able to feel secure as they go to school. over the last 10 years, we have had a series of events in this nation where there have been good guys with guns who were not able to stop the bad guys. two weeks ago in buffalo, new york, 10 people murdered including an armed security guard and former police officer who shot at the gunman, but the gunman had a bigger gun that he had. he was this brave former police officer who put his life on the line and we thank him for that. but he lost his life trying to protect others. a bad guy with a gun won. good guy with the gun, 0. in 2016, police and security guards were present at the harvest music civil las vegas and the hotel where the shooter was purged and carried out that mass murder, 58 people killed and over 18 -- over 800 injured. bad guy with a gun, two. good guy with a gun come on zero. i 2016 at the polls nightclub in orlando, an armed security guard shot at the government before the gunmen went into the club, ultimately killing 49 people. bad guy with a gun, three. good guy with a gun come on zero. in 20, a shooter killed 10 people at santa fe high school in texas, even though there were two officers on site. one was wounded trying to stop the gunmen. bad guy with the gun four, good guy with a gun, zero. we have listened to my colleagues on the others recount a series of situations where individuals armed with handguns protecting themselves in the lives of others were successful. and i can't argue with that other than to point out that they didn't do it with assault weapons. they had handguns. earlier in 2018, a school resource officer was on the campus at marjory stoneman douglas high school in parkland, florida. but he could not stop the gunmen from killing 17 high schoolers. bad guy with a gun, five. good guy with a gun, zero. when will be stop relying upon this failed motion that the only thing that stops bad guys is good guys? congress can stop some bad guys with good legislation and that is what we are here to do today. with that i yield back. >> the gentleman yelled back, for what purpose does mr. roy seek recognition? >> asked to speak on the amendment. >> gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have more to say on the underlying measure in a little bit, i just wanted to make a couple of comments because there has been a lot of reference to what did or did not occur in uvalde. the district i represent does not contain evolving, it borders texas 21. i know a lot of people in the community in uvalde and, including some of the folks involved. i got a phone call last tuesday, i had been trading messages with the mayor of uvalde and then we missed each other so i asked the mayor what was happening. the mayor texted me and said this is before we knew anything come of the reports were not out, it looks like 18 to 20 young kids, the quote asshole shot them and stacked them like firewood. we've all been realing -- reeling since then, knowing what it meant for eight close-knit community like this. it is horrific and it is the face of evil. i don't know whether or not a resolution or sense of congress by my friend from ohio will make a significant difference. but i do know i appreciate what the gentleman is trying to focus on, which is how do we prevent bad actors from carrying out bad acts, and what do we do and how do we respond to it? there is a lot of commentary going on about what police did or did not do in the school been uvalde. -- in uvalde. i would just ask for members to respect the process of looking through and determining the facts before we pass judgment. the gentleman from florida made the gay -- the point that there is a lot of unknown facts and investigations underway, state, federal and local. i have gotten multiple accounts, even in the last two days. we saw yesterday for example, the day before, the report of the propped open door by the teacher turned out not to be exactly accurate. the door had been propped open, or as i understand it, propped open when the teacher went out. that was a violation of protocol, no doubt. but when she heard gunfire, allegedly, went in and knocked the prop out. but then the door did not lock. that is a fact i don't even know. they will pursue that fact. mike point is the entire country was saying what is wrong with this teacher who propped the store. imagine, i happen to know some facts, what that meant to the teacher. everybody across america is saying how -- blaming her. and they are not just their now focus on the police, limning 19 cups, seven cups, seven cops, three, i get a different quote from every person talking about it, standing in the hallway, like they are sitting around while bad things are happening. that is not true fully based on what i understand from a number of accounts. i am not here to defend officers on the scene or criticize officers on the scene. i'm here to say let's wait on the damn facts. because these are people and we ought to be making sober judgments about what occurred in making policy accordingly. because what if the hardening and the steel doors were part of the difficulty of entering? what if the key was not accessible and was not appropriate timing and training for getting the key? i don't know. there are a lot of facts i'm waiting to reserve judgment on. i would ask that our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to be honest, but i have heard it from my democratic colleagues today making judgments about cops standing there, and i don't believe that was true for the vast majority of law enforcement on the scene who were trying to get access to and protect those kids. they don't deserve to be lumped into one group. we can make determinations about who made what decisions when the reports come out, and pass judgment accordingly. but we are still getting reports and facts on that. i feel strongly on that and i believe no matter where this occurs in the country, get the facts and figure out policy. there have been a number of things raised about ar-15's, and i don't know how much time i have left because i don't have a clock in front of me and i apologize for not being in person, i could not get a flight to work for me this morning as i intended. i have more to say about it, but a lot is being said about the ar-15, being a weapon of war, and what all they can do. going through concrete, cinderblocks and ripping people apart. it is a weapon of war, but the fact of the matter is, it is more accurate to say that a remington 700 bolt action rifle or others are a weapon of war as the ar-15, it is not, it is a cousin, but as a semi-audit open. the gentleman texas refer to automatic weapons, you can't get in on my weapon without a permit. i'm hearing people say why can't you get on board with this legislation, regret the time of the gentleman has expired, what purpose does the generally from georgia seek recognition? >> i moved to strike the last word in opposition. >> gentlelady is recognized. >> thank you, i am disappointed with the colleagues on the other side, the response to the slaughtering, their answer is to have more people with guns rather than taking him -- taking them out of the hands of people who should have access. there were 19 officers outside of the classroom where a gunman executed child after child after child, one for each child taken away from us. this false notion of good guys with guns does not work. that has been disproved over and over and over again. in buffalo, new york, a security guard with a gun, a retired police officer in fact, heroically tried to defend the shoppers in the grocery store. but he was shot down by the gunmen with an assault weapon. turning our schools into fortresses is absolutely not the answer. we cannot ignore our duty to protect our children from being massacred. yes, improving school safety is vitally important, but sensible gun safety is the fastest way to keep our families safe. trust me, i am a survivor of gun violence. i am a survivor, a mother, of senseless gun violence. we are teetering here in america on the brink of being one of the most civilized violent nations in the world. if we want to invest in our schools, invest in the mental health of the children and teachers who fear each and every day that they are in school and they are going to be the next site of a mass shooting. it is imperative that we focus on ensuring that guns are not in the wrong hands so that we are operating on the offense in preventing these shootings from happening in the first place. rather than acting in defense and only offering thoughts and prayers once they occur. i yield back. >> the gentlelady yields back, for what purpose does mr. buck seek recognition? >> speaking on behalf of the amendment. >> gentleman is recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman. i first want to thank the gentleman from ohio publishing the amended -- amendment. obviously my democratic colleagues make a point that not every time a good guy has a gun does he stop a bad guy with a gun. but it does happen on occasion. not every time that someone locks up a gun in a home do they stops one in a nearby school from entering and firing a gun. none of these measures that the democrats have proposed today stop all violence. mr. xiao fits amendment is intended to help. and nobody suggests that it does eliminate all chances of violence. i want to respond to the gentlelady from texas when she talked about the dark vision that republicans have. i think a lot of people in this country are offended that the lady would go that direction. first of all, she said anyone who wants to own a gun, republicans believe anyone who wants to own a gun should be able to get one. i don't believe that i don't think most of my republican colleagues believe that. i think anyone who has been convicted of a dangerous violent felony should not have a gun. i think it's quite obvious that there are people in this country that have forfeited their right to guns -- the secondment is not absolute and we should take that. the gentlelady talked about a dark vision that republicans have for america that somehow a good guy with a gun is not enough to stop a bad guy with a gun. well the democrats have taken away the ability of a good guy with a gun to have a gun in the school to stop bad guys. a teacher who wants to bring a gun to school, an administrator, coach or others can't do that right now. i also think if you want to point out dark visions for america, when the democrats argue for an open border, what they are arguing for is to allow dangerous gang members to come across that border. ms 13 and others. and they have. when they open the border up, they allow dangerous drugs to come across the border like fentanyl. the leading cause of death for 18 to 35-year-olds in this country is drug overdose. that directly occurs because of the open border policies of this administration. when you open a border you allow terrorists to come across the border. i think it was mr. cohen who mentioned earlier about the gun parts coming in from china that allow smi automatic weapon to be converted into an automatic weapon. that happens by opening a border and letting it come across. we don't hear democrats talking about that as a solution to get a grip on the terrible things that have been happening as a result of that. the democrats -- with their views on abortion. we have absolutely horrific late-term abortions that somehow the democrats think can happen in a vacuum and it won't have an impact on the rest of society. we have people being paid not to work. oftentimes those people are also using drugs, getting money from the government to buy the drugs. we have gas prices skyrocketing in this country. are those the dark vision of the democrat party? i don't think so. i think they are bad policies made by the liberal progressives. i don't think they are the dark vision of the democrats. i think we have to make sure we get away from the kind of language that the gentlelady used. we care deeply about what's happening in schools. these shallow inconsequential bills will have an impact on that. what i'm asking for and many of my colleagues are asking for, let's have some meaningful discussion on how to address not the gun at the person behind the gun. how to address the sickness, the people that we see in our society that will allow us to get to the point where we are a safer country. and i thank the gentleman from ohio for offering one small piece of that and really disappointing that the democrats won't acknowledge that it is a small piece but it is a positive step in what we can do. i yelled back. >> the gentleman from rhode island. -- i yield back. >> the gentleman from rhode island. >> in response to the comment about why don't we just wait until we understand all the facts of uvalde with more investigation underway, he acted as if we have had two mass shootings in america and we are coming to respond to thousands and thousands and thousands of shootings in this country over the last decade. what have been developed here are developed in response to a gun violence epidemic. i will not yield. the idea that we should wait a while families -- congress to respond. >> the time belongs to the gentleman from rhode island. >> -- we have waited too long already. failed to respond to the cries of people all across the country who have asked and demanded that congress acts. we shouldn't wait another second. we shouldn't wait another minute , another day. we should act now. the second thing is my friend and colleague from colorado just made reference to this suite of bills as shallow and inconsequential. shallow and inconsequential. i'm going to go through just a few pieces of this. ghost guns were used in a shooting in santa clara california that killed three people and injured three others. ghost guns were used in november 2017 in california that injured 18 people. another shooting in santa monica california killed six. bump stocks were used in las vegas the killed 60. -- that killed 60. shootings that involve people under 21 years of age. robb elementary school. tops friendly market. 10 were killed. santa fe. high school. 10 were killed. 13 were injured. parkland florida. marjory stoneman douglas high school. 17 were killed 17 injured. newtown. sandy hook elementary school. 27 children were killed. columbine, 15 people were killed and 24 were injured. those individuals would not have been able to buy the gun they bought if the bill that we are going to pass today where the law. the safe storage. the list goes on for pages. photos -- so to say inconsequential when it would save the lives of many, many people. even if it's one life. to say it's inconsequential and then cite let's talk about border security and abortion because all we want to do is avoid responsibility to act in the face of gun violence in this country. shame on our colleagues. you don't want to talk about it, you don't want to address it, don't come to the hearing. but honor those we have lost to gun violence by taking the issue seriously and being committed to finding solution. do you think a mother who lost a child wants to hear you talk about abortion and border security? this hearing is about these families and sadly there are thousands across this country who have suffered unspeakable pain. because congress has failed to act in our republican colleagues in the senate in particular and blocking any progress in reducing gun violence in this country. we owe it to their memory, we owe it to the oath that we have taken to protect our constituents. our most solemn responsibility. people talk about the second amendment. it's a constitutional amendment. you can't touch it. that is not true. the supreme court of the united states has told us that. the supreme court of the united states has made it clear that congress has the authority to impose reasonable restrictions. >> will the gentleman yield? >> to protect life and the safety and security of those we serve. in the same weight you can't yell fire in a crowded theater -- way you can't yell fire in a crowded theater -- all these claims about we wish we could do something. we wish we could remove america from this terrible distinction of being a country that has a gun violence epidemic unlike any other country in the developed world. and by the way, if more guns were the answer, we would live in the safest country in the world there are more guns in america than people. our country is awash in guns and it has produced more and more death and gun violence so that's not the answer. we have tried it. it doesn't work. we need real solutions so we can go back to our districts and demonstrate to the people we serve we have taken some action that's going to make a difference and help protect lives and communities across this country. with that i yield back. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> he set it right there. what they are upset about is the number of guns in the country. this isn't about modest age restrictions that are unconstitutional, or better record-keeping. they want fewer guns. they think that the answer is fewer guns. that is what is creating a lot of discomfort among our fellow americans who cherish their guns and second amendment rights and have actually committed no crime. >> do they cherish their children, mr. gates? >> their children aren't the ones at risk. >> all of the children in america are at risk. >> here's the tension. you guys are spasming into this reflexive response and you call it an emergency hearing. and the basis for the emergency is what happened in uvalde and we all agree it was awful and tragic, but you are not providing the thoughtful solutions that would reduce the likelihood of that. when you make an argument in the judiciary committee for a change in the law, you have to demonstrate a need for the change and that what you are bringing forward will actually affect that in a positive way and it's the second part of the argument where the bills you've presented today undeniably failed. in florida i would suggest we had a process that's a little bit that are than what we've observed here. in florida following parkland, every floridian wanted to reduce the likelihood that that could ever occur again for precisely the reasons that animate your passions today. instead of rushing to town stumbling bills together, we got our very best sheriff's, police chiefs, former members of law enforcement, people with tactical experience. and we put them on a board to review a school shooting as if it were an airline crash dispassionately, thoroughly. and then as a consequence, what we saw was actually a failure in law enforcement that the sheriff in broward county was so recalcitrant in doing the training that the on the ground law enforcement were so derelict in their duties, the children died that didn't need to. governor desantis rightly fired that sheriff, replaced him, but better training in. and we are safer as a consequence. so it's not that we are particularly here to talk about abortion or the border. we understand we have to make these things less likely. whether it's you holding an emergency hearing to respond to a leaked draft opinion that's not even final or now congressman roy from texas says before you have the emergency uvalde hearing, maybe we ought to figure out what happened so that we can make that frequency less likely to occur. i think there's also a balancing of interest here that the american people need to understand. if it saves one life, if anything that saves one life is totally worth doing and certainly every life -- loss of life is tragic. but mr. cohen gave up the game earlier when he said we acknowledge on the front end of this hearing that there will be deprivations of liberty to law-abiding people. that we will at times stop law-abiding people from doing what is otherwise constitutionally legal. so while i certainly want to every american to safely store their firearms, i am not entirely sure that the congress of the united states is the appropriate entity to tell americans how to store firearms and then punish them as a consequence. and if the result of all of this is there's a life or two that we save, how many tens of millions of americans are you willing to deprive of their constitutionally guaranteed liberty in order to achieve that objective when there might be a more narrowly constrained appropriate way for gun enthusiast groups, hunting clubs, local government states to try to educate and encourage proper safety of the storage of firearms? we share your goal of making the shootings less likely whether they be in our schools or elsewhere in our communities. but we don't think that in the name of saving one life that fundamentally constraining the rights of all americans is necessary, especially when we are still awaiting the results of the review of what happened in uvalde that shocked the conscience of all of us. so please spare us the spirited screaming. we want to stop the violence. we just wish she would listen to some of the ideas that we think would help. if you hold out schools as gun free zones, you make those school shootings more likely. and i don't think you want to do that. but i think that if you got rid of the gun free zones, we might see a reduction in violence. i yield back. >> move to strike. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> the gentleman from florida said that he and his republican colleagues want to stop the violence in this country, but it's difficult to believe that when their common sense steps that congress can take and they are unanimously obstructing those approaches. i want to elaborate something my colleague mr. cicilline said earlier. because it is clear to me that the more my colleagues misinterpret the second amendment and the supreme court's decision in d.c. versus heller, the more they are giving up the fact that they have not actually read those documents. the text is clear. the amendment protects the collective right of the people as a whole to possess arms solely for the purpose of forming a well regulated militia. last time i checked, the national guard doesn't depend on teenage boys owning semi automatic rifles with high-capacity magazines. notice that while the second minute is explicit that the government has the authority to regulate the use of arms, the second amendment does not include a single word about an individual right to own a gun. in fact, the claim that the second minute protects an individual's right to own a gun is so indefensible that even the conservative former chief justice warren burger, a nixon appointee no less, had once denounced it as one of the greatest pieces of fraud on the american public he had ever heard. no wonder the supreme court never recognized an individual right to own a gun from the ratification of the constitution in 1789. until 2008 when the roberts courts far right majority issued its 5-4 opinion in heller. it didst set a constitutional baseline that there is a right to own a handgun in the home. even in that egregiously mistaken decision, the court may clear that we can still regulate gun ownership particularly insensitive places as well as prohibit an individual from possessing firearms. justice scalia explains, the right secured by the second amendment is not unlimited. and the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. in fact, justice scalia went out of his way to emphasize that the sort of measures we are considering today would be plainly constitutional. he wrote, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings. or laws imposing conditions on qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms is that only the sorts of weapons protected were those in common use at the time. the constitution does not condemn us to allow weapons of war to flood our neighborhoods. make no mistake about that. my colleagues desperate citation to an outlier ruling by two trump appointees in one circuit and when have they ever been fans of the ninth circuit, does not change the reality of what the supreme court has said. that is why even more circuits have upheld age restrictions on firearms circuit -- purchases. the fifth circuit has twice upheld restrictions for 18 to 21-year-olds. the supreme court declined to weigh in both of those times. and the first and seventh circuits have upheld age restrictions as well. activist trump appointed judges may be trying to change federal law just as they are trying to roll back decades of federal law upholding the right to an abortion. but don't believe the lie that they are selling. allies so radical that even the far right roberts court hasn't endorsed it. age restrictions are nothing new and they are consistent with the second amendment. so i have heard enough and i think i speak for my democratic colleagues when i say this, of ill-informed dead faith constitutional misinterpretations. the constitution is no obstacle to protecting our kids in america today. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does mr. bishop seek recognition? >> to speak on the amended. >> in response to the comments just made, i've been wanting to knock down some canards and some strawman arguments that have been offered by the majority. to that point, the points just made by the gentle from from new york who earlier made clear because he said it literally, that he will use all means necessary to reverse the supreme court not through the processes of the supreme court but by changing it institutionally, by packing it. getting rid of the filibuster. institutional -- overwriting institutional norms as usual. to the point just argued, the central holding of heller is that the second amendment confers an individual right. that is the core of heller. it's what the left went berserk about because you don't want that right to be recognized. mr. jones comes forth making my argument better than i can, saying that his main objective is to see to it that individual right recognized in heller no longer continues to apply. >> will the gentleman yield? >> i won't. you had a great opportunity there. >> that you are now misconstruing. >> the statement has been made by mr. cicilline, by the president of the united states. the second amendment is not absolute. it is not without limit. no one has contended that it is without limits. but heller gives clear indications to what are permissible. you read from some of them, the fourth circuit earlier. the recognition of the dissent in the same case is that 18 to 20-year-olds are covered by the second amendment first. the second point is that bands of widely prevalent firearms and appointed mechanisms -- you can't do that. another thing heller said you can't do is require people to lock them up in their homes so they can't be accessed to provide for their main purpose, which is the right of self-defense of home and hearth. >> with a gentleman yield? -- will the dental men yield? >> i will not. -- will the gentleman yield? >> i will not. you couldn't buy a canon when the second amendment was adopted, and it's false. it's been debunked repeatedly. but he keeps repeating it. i'm making the argument you attribute to those of us on our side who are raising the question of the constitutionality of what you proposed. i do not make the augment that the second minute is absolute or unlimited. what i make the point about is heller held what it held. mcdonald held what it held. that was the supreme court of the united states. do you acknowledge that baseline or do you not? mr. jones has made clear repeatedly that he does not. when we have raised these points about what other courts are deciding about the 18 to 20 euros being covered, they have a right under that amendment. number one. and number two, that some limitations are impermissible. and those you propose in this bill. three of them. i said two earlier. i was mistaken. three. you want to ban a whole class of weapons to 18 to 20-year-olds. number one. number two, you want to impose the same kind of disabling requirement mandate in the home of weapons that heller said is impermissible and finally you want to ban magazines that are predominant, prevalent everywhere in the country. heller said you can't do that. so you've got to contend with why at least -- it's great for you guys to cite the ninth circuit. the ninth circuit is liberal and even they have said that this is something that can't be done. you can't ban a class of weapons to people 18 to 20. i am glad to undertake things that we can do. what's talk about them. when you talk about things you can't and coupled them with statements that say i'm going to get rid of the statement by any means. >> will the gentleman yield? >> i will yield. >> what do you support? are you willing to do to stop the epidemic of gun violence in this country? what efforts would you be willing to undertake with your democratic colleagues in this today. >> you look at what's happening and then you actually do things that would address that. >> you are not going to answer the question because you don't actually have an approach. >> i would make sure that police are not discouraged from going in and saving children who are being assaulted while the assault is going on. i would not intimidate the police and tell them they ought to cease to exist. >> i can translate that for you. he's willing to do nothing. >> the gentleman's time is expired. >> moving to strike the last word. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> just a couple of points. first of all, the assertion that heller prevents us from taking the action that we are taking today is just a misreading of heller. and i will leave it to the scholars to look at what was struck down in heller and what we are proposing here. the reference to the ninth circuit i understand. forget who the judges were in this case. the fact is there are other circuits who have ruled otherwise. that's just be clear about that. i have to respond to what mr. gates said. i know that there are families in the room there today who lost loved ones in newtown. and i know that there are people watching all around the country, including a lot of my constituents, 17 families in fact, whose loved ones will never come home. and the 60 families from las vegas and 49 families from orlando and virginia tech. the virginia tech shooting. 32 people killed. that was in 2007. this idea, this argument that we are rushing into action, that we are not being thoughtful, that we should just take some time to really understand what happened before we respond is another way of saying we have no interest in ever responding in ever doing anything to stop this gun violence epidemic in our country. that's the message that it's sending. you can't sit there, with all due respect to my colleagues, you cannot sit as a member of the house of representatives and tell my constituents that it's just too soon for us to russian to figure out what kind of legislation we should pass. we haven't had time to really fully digest what happened in uvalde. or buffalo. or any other mass shooting it has taken place in the more than four years since that awful valentine's day in parkland. and when mr. gates talks about what the state legislature did, the way he characterizes it is we all got together and came up with all kinds of things we should do that are so radically different than what we are trying to do here today. in fact, in fact, what the florida legislature did was come together in a bipartisan way and raise the age to buy in ar-15 to 21. by any gun. to 21. that's what the florida legislature did. let's be clear about it. you know what else they did? they passed a red flag law. because they understand that if you give law enforcement the ability to take action so that someone who poses a threat to himself or herself shouldn't have a firearm and that you build in appropriate due process rights, that that's the appropriate thing to do. that's what we are going to do next week also. that's what florida did. it just pains me, i think it pains all of us. and frankly anyone who's watching what we are doing here today. to look at this debate and to be told that congress is just rushing headlong into doing something without giving it appropriate thought there are people in my community whom all of you know at this point because they have devoted their lives to honoring the memories of their loved ones who were slaughtered. struck down. taken from them at marjory stoneman douglas high school. they do not deserve to be told that we have to really dig in and spend more time figuring out how to respond to these mass shootings before we can take action. they don't know other families suffering without a loved one, the whole the event leaves forever. what we are doing here today is reasonable. anyone who looks at these proposals knows that they are reasonable. and in fact consistent with what's been done in my own state of florida run by a republican legislature with a republican governor. let's come together and pass this legislation and help to save lives. >> for what purpose does mr. mcclintock recognition? >> thank you. i think the reason we don't often hear about mass shootings stopped by a citizen with a gun is that they didn't come mass shootings precisely because they were stopped by a citizen with a gun. a mass shooting was stopped by a woman with a gun in charleston the very day after uvalde. she couldn't have done that in a gun free school. is there any other possible way to stop a bad guy with a gun thin with a goodbye with -- good guy with a gun? there is no question. it's often said the police can be there in minutes when seconds count even when the police respond, they don't always act once they get there. those who are directly threatened gunmen are those in the best position to stop such an attack because they are there on the spot in their lives depend on it. and yet you won't let them. that's stunning to me. nor do you seem to be serious about enforcing the laws when they are violated. that's what we have observed time and again from your local district attorneys. if you don't take our laws seriously, what makes you think criminals will? and again i ask, why hasn't hunter biden been prosecuted for violating the laws that prohibit drug users from purchasing firearms. a felony. the gun that he legally -- illegally obtained ended up retrieved from an open trashcan 500 feet from the school. ms 13 is not going to obey your laws. terrorists won't obey them either. nor will criminals. all your measures to his make it lawfully impossible for lawn biting citizen to defend themselves. so why won't you protect our children in their schools with the same seriousness as we protect our money at the bank? nobody questions the common sense of having an armed guard at a bank. but leftists somehow cannot see the common sense of having an armed guard at a school. they seem more serious about protecting our money than protecting our children. that's utterly and explicable. this raises the question of how many bank robberies never happened because robbers know there's an armed guard to return fire and how many attacks on schools can be discouraged when the gunman knows they are likely to be opposed with lethal force? the lift lives in this fantasy world where all they have to do is pass a law against a criminal from obtaining a gun. there are limits to the efficacy of our laws. the madman in uvalde didn't obey them. but everyone else around that gunmen did. and so he operated with impunity and he knew that was a safe environment for him to do violence as his own diary noted, because he knew no one would be there to return fire. when are my friends going to take the world as it is and not as they wish it would be? there's a father of modern policing. he once observed that the police are simply the extension of the community. the community is the police and the police are the community. every citizen has a right and duty to uphold the law and protect themselves. the police are there to help. the only difference he said was that the police officer is a profession or -- professional hired to his duty full-time. this amendment makes it more likely an attack could be stopped before it starts and less likely that a gunman would target our schools. until you are ready to protect our children with force, you are not serious about protecting our children at all. i yield back. >> the gentlelady from california. >> mr. chairman, i am really pretty disappointed by some of the rhetoric and arguments and positions that have been advanced today and i think it's important to just refresh ourselves with some facts. gun violence is now the leading cause of death for the children of america. america is basically the only country in the world that experiences mass shootings constantly on a regular basis. countries that have regulated assault weapons and taken action have solved these problems. take a look at new zealand and australia. we have to do something. americans are experiencing an unacceptable level of violence because of the prevalence of assault weapons by unstable people and what is being recommended here is modest but would do some good. in my own district, we have experienced this trauma. in 2019 at the annual gilroy garlic festival, a young man with an assault weapon, a semi automatic rifle, killed three people and wounded 17 others before killing himself. california has strong gun controls, but he went over to nevada and purchased these weapons and then brought them back to california. that's why we need to have a nationwide approach. even if we can't stop all gun violence through these measures, the common sense provisions in the bill before us today will do some good and it will save lives. and i would just like to say that recent polling indicates that 89 percent of americans support universal background checks. 86% of americans support red flag laws. and a whopping 70% of republican and republican leaning voters support universal background checks. we do know that gun violence can be countered through some of these provisions. i was out listening to constituents the last couple of days and several of my constituents, gun owners, came up to me pleading with me to do something. they pointed out that in their view, it was unwise to allow immature individuals 18, 19-year-old kids, to go out and buy legally assault weapons. and as one of my constituents and said, that kid can't go out and buy a beer. that kid can't go out and rent a car until he's 25. but we are selling these lethal weapons to him. that doesn't make any sense. so i hope that we can stop being the only country on earth where mass shootings are a near daily occurrence and i think part of achieving that will be to pass the bill for us and to stop talking and throwing dirt in the air and confusing the situation with extraneous discussion. i think we owe the american people better than that and i yield back, mr. chairman. >> the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does ms. dean seek recognition? >> i just want to tell a story about how i started my day. i started it with school students. abington high school, jr. high school, members of the national honor society. eighth, ninth and 10th graders. they wanted to know about how i got into this line of work, what inspired me to do it. but guess what. that all got set aside because their first five questions were about us. what are we doing to make them safer in schools. what are we doing to make them safer on their playgrounds. in their grocery stores, synagogues, churches and on and on. these wise beyond their years eighth, ninth and 10th graders from abington school district asked what are we doing? and i tried to say the very thing we are here to do today is to respond i know it's later than it ever should have been, was to respond to the scourge of gun violence in this country. when i ran for congress in 2018, i remember going to meeting after meeting and telling folks, parents, voters what i care about. i said i care about the problem of gun violence in this country. i want to do something about it. it is not right that our children are now fearful to go to school. don't feel secure in their schools. one father stood up to this was 20. one father stood up and really hollered at me. he said you care about gun violence? what do i do with my third grader who last night couldn't fall asleep because they had an active shooter drill and they were coached to find scissors, run and throw scissors. weapons. at the would-be shooter. what are we teaching our children? so i want those abington high school students to have hope that there are leaders across this dais. join us. say that you take this problem seriously. say that you believe you have to save lives. stop saying we've got to study this some more as the coffins are going in the ground. we don't have to study this, we know what the problems are. mr. chairman, i yield the remainder of my time to the gentlelady from texas. >> i think the gentlelady from pennsylvania and her indulgence. i want to answer a question by saying that we will do something. i'm absolutely disturbed by the continuation of insanity. and i can say that because i have set in this room, my fellow colleagues, and this insanity has continued every time we come to this moment in history. and it continues on the bodies of dead children and dead americans. not at war, but in their homes, their communities. their schools. it is important that we move away from this constant babel of rejection. and i beg to differ with the interpretation of my friends. because it is not an interpretation of the constitution which is a living document. there have been several cases making it very clear that there are limitations to gun use. it is actually ignoring the fact that we are proud in america of being the overseers of democracy and a constitution that is alive, that is breathing. that is the argument mr. jones was making. but the rejection comes from overall tone deafness and the sense that continues to have a crowd of people that want to hear insanity. and the reason why it is, because if again you read the case of one of the most conservative jurists in the heller case, it continues to say it finds support in the historical tradition. this is in the case. common use at the time finds support in historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual guns. pages 54 to 56. or that certain people that are felons or mentally ill should not have possessions of firearms. or they should not be in sensitive places like schools and government buildings. i already said to mr. shaaban that we can do these things that they are already able to be done. this is what i have to contend with in a state that has absolutely no relevant gun loss and i will recite them time after time. dallas, fort hood, second fort hood. dallas police. this is texas. santa fe, el paso, midland, uvalde. how many dead persons, 100 83 injuries. 153 dead. this is insanity. the pain of around her because her daughter emily vaughn. the mother of ethan's in this room. if she doesn't mind me saying. who knows her pain? insanity that is going over and over again. the commitment is that we will do something and that the constitution allows us to do something. that the case law allows us to do something. and i would think the names of these dead children and the two beautiful teachers and her husband imperative that we do something. ensures that we must do something. we will join that babbling of insanity if we do not do something. i refuse to do that. we will do something. i yield back. >> the gentlelady yields back in question occurs on the amendment. all those in favor say aye. the no's have it. the amendment is not agreed to. at this time the committee will take a brief 15 minute recess. >> later, after meeting for more than nine hours, the judiciary committee went on to approve the package of gum reform proposals, sending it to the house. the legislation could come to the floor as early as wednesday. c-span is your unfiltered view of government. funded by these television companies and more. >> the world has changed. today, a fast, reliable internet connection is something no one can live without. speed, reliability, value and joys, now more than ever, it all starts with great internet. >> wow supports c-span, giving you a front row seat to democracy. tonight, on q&a, phil clay discusses the impact of the war in afghanistan. >> one of the things that they used to say is we are at war and america is at the mall. america is at work, i am at the mall, maybe this is where i am supposed to be. the contempt that i felt this kind of crazy because you think that civilian life is worth defending. >> let us tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's q&a. you can listen to q&a and all of our podcasts on our new free c-span now app. c-span's washington journal, everyday we are taking your calls live, on the air on the news of the day and we will discuss policy issues that impact you. coming up monday morning, crouching previously january 6 congressional hearings and the white house reporter for the hell talks about the challenges facing president biden's domestic and foreign policy. and the prospects for a renewed nuclear deal. the executive director of the arms control association, watch washington journal live at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span or on c-span now, our free mobile app. join the discussion with your phone call, facebook comments, text messages and tweets.

Related Keywords

Arkansas ,United States ,Louisiana ,Australia ,Afghanistan ,El Paso ,Texas ,Alexandria ,Al Iskandariyah ,Egypt ,United Kingdom ,China ,California ,Fort Hood ,Russia ,Syracuse ,New York ,Connecticut ,West Virginia ,Tulsa ,Oklahoma ,Arizona ,New Zealand ,Wyoming ,Hollywood ,Sicily ,Illinois ,Spain ,Chicago ,Baltimore ,Maryland ,Rochester ,Georgia ,Sandy Hook ,Pennsylvania ,Japan ,Portland ,Oregon ,Tampa ,Florida ,Dayton ,Ohio ,Washington ,Philadelphia ,Kentucky ,Rhode Island ,Columbus ,Virginia ,San Antonio ,Canada ,Cincinnati ,Mississippi ,Jordan ,Tennessee ,Israel ,Colorado ,Capitol Hill ,Metairie ,Boulder ,New Haven ,Houston ,Dallas ,Orlando ,Broward County ,Americans ,British ,Floridian ,American ,Spanish ,Rosa Delauro ,America ,Margus Morrison ,Joe Biden ,Dina Titus ,Emily Vaughn ,Santa Barbara ,Geraldine Talley ,Zachary Arnold ,Heyward Patterson ,Thomas Jefferson ,John Mack ,Lexi Rubio ,Celestin Cheney ,John Rutherford ,Garcia Xavier Lopez ,Michael Moore ,Las Vegas ,Jackson Lee ,Roberta Drury ,Ruth Whitfield ,Anthony Brown ,John Paul ,Marjory Stoneman Douglas ,Katherine Massey ,Greg Abbott ,Alex Navarro ,Franklin Roosevelt ,