house floor where lawmakers will debate on the bill. rep. nadler: the committee will come to order. the committee dispensed of the shaaban amendment. what purpose does mr. tiffany seek recognition? >> i have an amendment. >> point of order. rep. nadler: point of order is reserved. put forth the amendment. >> amendment to the amendment. rep. nadler: the amendment will be considered. the gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment. >>'s amendment addresses an issue that this committee has refused to address in the past as it relates to gun violence across our nation. the bill before us has been named the protect our kids act but it does little of that. it does create unconstitutional restrictions on lawful gun ownership, the american people know the endgame. it is to strip law-abiding citizens of their ability to defend themselves. my amendment addresses gun violence in a meaningful way. it is not to get new laws, but enforces them. it would require the department of justice to work with state and local governments and their law enforcement partners to assume jurisdiction of cases which are declined to be prosecuted by the state. this would have a real impact because -- rep. nadler: you said 922 g cases. can you explain what those are? >> those cases are when the federal government can take over felony gun cases. let's say you have someone that has committed a felony in possession of a gun and states can prosecute by the federal government can also, in some cases, the states, because of what i was getting at, is because of weak prosecutors or rogue prosecutors in some of the big cities across america, there is sometimes bringing these cases or not charging and this would allow the federal doj to take those cases and be able to file charges for somebody that is carrying a gun, who has committed a felony in the past. does that answer your question? rep. nadler: yes, thank you. rep. tiffany: so that is the explanation for the amendment. in closing, i want to make one point tangential to what we are talking about today. it is interesting, as we have heard the various mass shootings that have gone on in america whether it is buffalo, uvalde, these horrific shootings that have been going on. but no one brings up waukesha. the waukesha christmas parade. this is part of what is gets at, though a different vehicle, in this case a truck was used to kill six people in the waukesha christmas parade here in wisconsin just six months ago. i noticed no one brings that mass killing up, and in that case, it was a vehicle that was used, not a gun. we are not outline vehicles. -- outlawing video goals -- vehicles. no one brings that up, which i don't understand why. we should all, whenever there is an unfortunate incident like a mass killing that goes on, we should all decry that, we should all be saying -- >> will you yield to a question on the amendment? just so i can understand it? rep. tiffany: i will yield. rep. nadler: the amendment says the attorney general shall coordinate with the state attorney general and appropriate state law enforcement officials to prosecute a violation. so the amendment will require the coordination or does it compel the attorney general to actually file charges if the state does not? one of them would be used i guess to coordinate but if it is directing the attorney general, it seems to run into problems about compelling the executive branch to take certain actions. rep. tiffany: if i may come up the language you see, it requires them to coordinate with local enforcement. >> it says in order to prosecute a violation. rep. tiffany: the operative term is coordinate. >> could you say coordinate in order to consider prosecution? is that we give discretion -- it seems like otherwise the are compelling a prosecution, which i'm not sure you intend to do. rep. tiffany: doj just has to coordinate with the local unit of government. my understanding and i hope i have allowed additional time here, my understanding the term coordinate is equal where both the federal government and state and local governments have an equal seat at the table so they are going to sit down and coordinate and that will be made. rep. nadler: does the gentleman yield back? rep. tiffany: i would just like to, if i can take a couple more seconds in closing. rep. nadler: share. rep. tiffany: someone challenged us to come forth with proposals today. mr. jones asked, what are you willing to do? this is what we are willing to do. you have seen these amendments come forth now, like this one, and i'm asking for everyone on this committee to support this amendment. this is what you are seeing from republicans. we could have included my amendment if we would have sat down and worked together earlier in the process rather than me having to bring it as an amendment now in a markup. with that, i ask for your support and i go back. rep. nadler: does the gentlelady insist on her point of order? >> i withdraw my point of order. rep. nadler: point of order is withdrawn. i recognize myself. this is a very good idea, but the amendment is unnecessary and redundant because state and federal prosecutors already cooperate in cases of prohibited persons in possession of firearms in many jurisdictions including my own in new york. there are federal and state taskforces to coordinate these efforts. while mr. tiffany is right, it is already done so the amendment is redundant. i would oppose it as redundant because it is already done and the amendment would do nothing. who seeks recognition? >> strike the last word. rep. nadler: the gentlelady is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am very eager to find an answer to mr. jones -- i move to strike the last word. i am eager to find an answer to mr. jones' question from our friends. i would ask the question to mr. tiffany, if this amendment was included, that would then make you likely to support the protect kids active? is that accurate? rep. tiffany: i would be happy to answer your question. early in the summation that i gave a minute ago, this would be a good change, but as i said, this bill creates several unconstitutional restrictions on buffalo gun ownership. rep. jackson lee: so your answer would be no? i have little time. rep. tiffany: as a member of the judiciary committee, i'm not going to be in manhattan. rep. jackson lee: your answer is no? again, as indicated, this may be already done, but let me seek -- speak to the conditions of texas. i don't know what laws my prosecutors could in fact operate under. we have no universal background checks. we have no ban on assault weapons. we have no red flag laws. we have no age 21 requirement. we have no waiting period to buy iron farms -- to buy firearms and ammunition. we have no limit on open terry. we have open carry. no ban on concealed weapons in universities. we are completely without an infrastructure for which our prosecutors basically could operate under. if the master shooter at -- mass shooter at the school in uvalde had lived, there might be a trial. in buffalo, of course, this shooter was motivated by white supremacy, and there are certainly no laws -- because i know my friends will call that speech and protection of free speech, i don't know whether they would use that -- view that as disinformation. but the difficulty of the larger picture of what you're doing is that is why the federal government needs to act, because there is an inconsistency of protection that does not violate the second amendment, and i will state, there are states like new york and california, illinois, that have put in strong laws and they have seen an impact. maybe not on the individual issues of gun violence, which we are in fact responding to in this legislation, we are not leaving out those circumstances, but it is well documented that states like illinois, new york, and california, people bring guns in. we understand that these circumstances allow coordination. i would find it stronger to say that the attorney general is directed to do such where there is a gap or the attorney general can rely upon federal laws. i don't think i see this clearly here in order to prosecute a violation of the state and you use title 18, the state declines to prosecute such conduct. we don't have any in the state of texas. we have felons who cannot rob a bank and i assume if they had a gun, that is an element a prosecution, but we are talking about the incidents of mass murders. so this amendment, which i am certainly empathetic to your intent, does not work or get any help to the mourning parents in texas who are mourning frequently, including wanda hart, whose daughter can believe on was killed -- daughter kimberly von was killed because the gun was not stored in santa fe, texas and norwood have helped the circumstances in uvalde. i have to oppose the underlying amendment. rep. nadler: is there any further discussion on the amendment? all those in favor, say aye. opposed, nay. no's have it on the amendment is not agreed to. any further amendments? for what purpose do you seek recognition? >> i seek to offer an amendment. >> reserve a point of order. rep. nadler: point of order is observed. >> amendment to the amendment of h.r. 7910. rep. nadler: the amendment will be considered. the gentleman has five minutes to explain his amendment. >> one of the six titles of this bill is called title two, prevent gun trafficking. i'm not sure why it is necessary. it is trying to outlaw something that is already illegal. it says it shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly purchase or acquire or attempt to purchase or acquire a firearm for possession of a third party. if you do this today, you go to an ffl and buy a firearm, you sign on the form that you are purchasing that firearm for yourself, not for another individual. in other words, you are attesting, you are swearing that you are not a star purchaser of this firearm -- straw purchaser of this firearm. why is title two necessary? it says it is going to outlaw the same thing that is already illegal. when somebody offers a law or new law that does something that an old law already does, the question is what more does it do? what more does it intend to do? one of the things we should make sure this new law does not do is create more victims, not defendable victims of domestic violence. the law that is proposed today, prevent gun trafficking, has exceptions. it says that if the firearm is purchased or acquired by any person that wants to give it as a bona fide gift to a family member, they are not a gun trafficker. that makes sense. if it is purchased by an agent of a lawful business for another agent of that business, let's say a rancher, i presume, i say firearm because one of their ranch hands needed to shoot coyotes or something. but it is lacking something that i think it needs and that is why i offer this amendment. my amendment says this section, this gun trafficking section, shall not apply to any firearm if the purchaser or person acquiring the firearm transfers the firearm to a victim of domestic violence for his or her protection. >> with agenda been yield? >> i would yield. >> how do you define domestic violence in this amended? rep. massie: how would you define it? >> is a lot of domestic violence. that is an open term. rep. massie: somebody who has been a victim of domestic violence. >> that could be anybody. it could be a bullying. rep. massie: i yield to mr. bishop. >> i would say in response, a term in the absence of a definition is construed by the court according to its normal and natural meaning in dictionary sense. >> would limits? what is to mexico violence? -- would there be limits? what is domestic violence? >> you might think of domestic violence as between married people, or you might think, we need to make sure it covers people in committed relationships who are not married. i could see how you could have a more expansive definition of domestic violence. i don't know how you would miss the essence of it. i would think, this being a remedial measure, the court would interpret the term liberally to reach all reasonable constructions including people in a domestic relationship. i think it is clear what domestic violence is. >> if the gentleman is concerned that it is a broad term, i will accept perfecting amendments to this to define domestic violence and i reclaim my time. i think anything we do today here, we have to think of the unintended consequences and if this amendment would save one life, it is worth voting for. >> will the gentleman yield? >> share. -- sure. >> my question is, i think the reason that this provision is included in this legislation is there is currently not an explicit prohibition on straw purchasing. the first claim you made as it repeats -- if you look at prosecutions, the requirement that the gun seller represent who is buying the gun, that person has a background check -- rep. massie: i am reclaiming my time. people are prosecuted for straw purchases. you are buying on a form when you fill out the 4473 and maybe they should be prosecuted more but the law is already on the books and i don't think anybody who is trying to protect a domestic violence victim should be convicted of gun trafficking. i yield back. >> [indiscernible] >> i withdraw my point of order. rep. nadler: i recognize myself in opposition to the amendment. this amendment is unnecessary because if you look at page six, lines 11 to 16, it reads, this section shall not apply to firearms if the person acquiring the firearm has no reason to believe that the recipient will use or intends to use the firearm in a crime or is prohibit or from purchasing or possessing firearms under state or federal law. in other words, this amendment does what the bill already does. it is the sharp purchase provision of the bill. i assume based on your amendment that you support the ghost gun provision. i would oppose the amendment because it is redundant. >> with the chairman yield? the provision she just read also requires that the firearm is purchased or acquired by any person that wants to give it as a gift to a family member or that they are an agent of a lawful business and intends to give it to another agent of that business. it requires either one of those in addition to what the chairman stated. it has to be a gift to a family member, which is defined in here , family member is defined as stepchildren, uncles -- rep. nadler: family member is covered by the term any person. rep. massie: does the term family member defined on the previous page, it has to be an uncle or niece or nephew. if you transferred, under this law today that seeks to be passed, if you transferred a firearm to a victim of domestic violence and you were not related to them, you would be in violation of a federal law punishable by up to 10 years. i seek to rectify that with this amendment. rep. nadler: the issue, you have to draw the line somewhere. rep. massie: but is not redundant. my amendment is not redundant, with all due respect. rep. nadler: the issue is you have to draw the line somewhere, otherwise you are allowing open transfers. that is what the bill does and the amendment would not change that. rep. massie: the amendment does change this law so somebody does not go to prison, federal prison, for trying to help a domestic violence -- rep. nadler: it does not require proof of domestic violence. so it does not change the bill at all. rep. massie: it would be a defense for somebody who was convicted under this, they could offer that they were assisting a victim of domestic violence. rep. nadler: it will still have to prove that. rep. massie: that is right and that does not change the bill. because that is not a defense -- if the bill is not improved if my amendment, that is not a defense. rep. nadler: the amendment does not change the bill. they would have to do that with or without the amendment. rep. massie: i yield to mr. bishop. >> i'm not sure i can do better than that. rep. nadler: i will yield to mr. bishop. >> i don't know if i can do better than that. mr. massey explained why the segment that you read does not provide protection to all domestic violence victims. he set out a separate defense in his amendment for a domestic violence victim not to be prosecuted for receiving -- trafficking in guns. rep. nadler: we will work with you if we can come up with a better definition then victim of domestic violence. that is what it comes down to. i don't think we can, but if we can, fine. i will yield. >> the scenario is you have a lady who has been a victim of domestic violence and her neighbor or she goes to the neighbor and wants some kind of protection and he helps her, he says, we want to help this lady so she can protect her life, and that is not covered under the legislation. the amendment is that scenario because the neighbor is not a family member. it is a neighbor who want to help her out. rep. nadler: it is an interesting story but we still have to come up with a definition of victim of domestic violence. we are willing to work with you on that. >> you initially said the text does not cover it so now we have to come up with a definition. rep. nadler: the text does cover it. the text covers it but if you think it does not cover it enough sufficiently, we will work with you for a better definition. but i think the bill covers it. i will yield. >> if the scenario the ranking member just used i think would be covered by subsection d which says this section shall not apply to any firearm if the purchaser or person acquiring the firearm -- that is the neighbor -- has no reason to believe the recipient will use or intends to use the firearm in a crime or is prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms by state or federal law. rep. jordan: keep reading. "and." >> required by any person or any other person has to purchase, one gift between family matters -- why would that not be covered by the existing linger? rep. jordan: we are not a family member. rep. cicilline: or required by agent of a lawful business -- rep. jordan: they are not a business agent. you're having a hard time extending -- hard time understanding what domestic violence is. rep. cicilline: is not a hard time understanding domestic violence, it is a hard time understanding why you don't think the provisions that are in the building not cover that scenario. i believe it is my time. >> actually it isn't. i think it is our turn, right? rep. nadler: wait a minute, who seeks recognition? >> i do. thank you, sir. are you ready to take some time yielded? let me say this before mr. massey comes back to it. let's assume this is a superfluous amendment. let's assume the amendment to protect victims of domestic violence from being prosecuted as fun traffickers because they receive a gun to protect themselves, let's assume that reduction is superfluous, people are kids the protection in the subsection you are reading from. i don't think it is, but let's assume that. what is the problem in stating it twice so a person who has been suffering domestic violence is protected? as a general theme here -- i think what i have heard across the aisle all day long is republicans will not cooperate to come up with reasonable mechanisms. third point, this is a great issue, it is core to the question of whether it is an appropriate new law to put on the books. if you had a conversation about any of the stuff in this instead of ramming onto a mark and bringing us in here, we would not have the discussion from the dais trying to sort this out. i will yield to mr. massie. rep. massie: thank you. it is frustrating to debate in what has been written and introduced by the other side of the aisle. there bill has no provision to protect a violence victims, it is not -- protect domestic violence victims, and the fact that they are just now discovering it in this hearing that was rushed, we got 48 hours notice, maybe they did not think through all these bills, maybe they did not realize you are going to gun traffickers out of neighbors that are trying to help domestic violence victims. just read the bill that has been introduced, it is not superfluous, what i'm saying, and i think it is important. let me close with this. i think it is indicative of the lack of thought and unintended consequences that will stem from these bills that they are trying to pass today and their lack of knowledge of what it does and does not allow and i yield mr. bishop. rep. bishop: 100%. before i give a specific example that will not be covered by the exception to which the democrats have referred, i want to be clear that when a vote is taken, democrats are going to vote against protecting victims of domestic violence from possibly being prosecuted as fun traffickers because they receive a weapon to protect themselves. let me give you a specific example. if people are cohabitating as roommates in a property and one is beating the other one on a regular basis and the one being beaten gets a gun from a friend, they are prosecutable under your bill. the friend and the victim. mr. massie wants to have a modest amendment to provide for that, you are against it, fine. anybody else want time? anybody want to contradict what i said on the other side? i yield back. rep. nadler: for what purposes do you seek recognition? >> i seek to strike the last word. i am gratified to hear that our colleagues have concerns about victims of domestic violence, because they have been so resistant to helping us pass an evidence-based protection for victims optimistic violence and that would be closing the boyfriends loophole, the loophole that precludes us from removing -- >> will the gentlewoman yield? >> i was going to finish my thought first. events us from removing weapons from the homes of someone who has been convicted of domestic violence and that would be a place we could look for a definition of domestic violence. but our colleagues voted against it because of that provision. if we want to do an amendment, i urge that we do one that deals with removing guns from the homes of stockers, people convicted of stalking order message violence, because the evidence shows that is where there is a risk of gun violence. rep. nadler: the gentlelady yields. i want to add, there is no research to support the idea that women's gun ownership increases their safety. regardless of whether they are violence victims. so the opposite, women living in households with a firearm are at greater risk of homicide. the study found that even for women who lived apart from their abuser, there was no evidence of protective impacts from owning a gun. a california study found that women who purchased a gun died by firearm homicide at twice the rate of women who did not. i yield back to the gentlelady. >> do you yield to me? rep. scanlon: i've yielded back to the chair. >> i ask unanimous consent -- rep. scanlon: i yielded back to the chair. >> mr. chairman. rep. nadler: who seeks recognition? >> i have a unanimous consent request. i would like to submit to the record an article from the new york post, never before, 2019, pregnant mom uses ar-15 to kill home intruder. rep. nadler: without objection. who seeks recognition? what purpose does mr. jordan sick recognition? rep. jordan: i yelled to the gentleman from north carolina. >> recognizing this might be taking one step too far, i want to make sure i understand, the gentlelady from pennsylvania, did she respond to this concern by talking about another bill? that is what i thought. that is where it stands, no one has an answer to the example i gave of a domestic violence situation that is not protected from being classified as a gun traffickers under this bill. mr. massie proposed -- i guess you are for victimizing domestic victims. you will not respond to it substantively and the only answer coming from the other side in response to that, you cannot rebut that example, the only answer is to talk about another bill that somebody did not support. fine. that is great. i don't think you can make a clearer case for the nature of the dialogue, the nature of this proceeding on this particular bill, this package of stuff, then that example. i thank you, mr. massie, for a great bill. i yield back to mr. jordan. rep. jordan: the good samaritan in the illustration mr. bishop gave is going to be a trafficker under this legislation. the person who has been abused is going to be a trafficker under this legislation. if they enhance penalties under this legislation, because they will not accept this amendment. that is what this does, which gets to the point we talked about for several hours, this is all about making it tougher for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and exercise their second amendment liberties. that is what this does. we all understand it. it is a good amendment, i cannot believe it will not be accepted, i yield to the gentleman from kentucky. >> if we have a law that does something that the law already our compass is, why do we need the new law? the difference between the existing law, if e.r.a. straw purchaser, you can be convicted. a good samaritan who buys a firearm, gives it to ida messick violence victim, only the purchaser can be convicted under existing law. this amendment changes that situation so that the recipient of the firearm, the victim, can also be prosecuted as a gun trafficker. that is the difference between the existing law and what will happen if this law passes. why would democrats want to prosecute a domestic violence victim who has received a firearm for him or herself defense? >> proud moment. >> i yield to the gentleman from colorado. >> i think the gentleman from ohio. this is a precious moment and i hope americans get the chance to watch the last 15 minutes of this. the first argument the chair based in opposition to this amendment was it was redundant, that the bill covered it. when it was obvious that the builder not cover it, the chair said, we do not know what domestic violence is, we don't understand domestic violence. it may not be redundant, but to domestic violence. -- but defined domestic violence. then when is clear -- when it is clear what domestic violence means, we hear from the gentlelady from pennsylvania, women cannot protect themselves, they are not capable of protecting themselves with guns. i hope you tell the women of this country that the second amendment does not apply to them, they are incapable. in colorado, the concealed carry permit classes, there are more women taking those classes in many jurisdictions than men. so women should have the right to protect themselves. and i hope take advantage of that right to protect themselves from anyone, any predator who intends to harm them. maybe the democrats can come up with other but herring reasons to oppose this good amendment, an amendment that would strengthen the bill, an amendment that would make america a safer place. right now, you failed on three counts and i think it is time that you acknowledge that mr. massie has a good amendment and i yield back. rep. nadler: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? the gentlelady from texas? >> i moved to strike the last word. rep. nadler: the gentlelady is recognized. >> i think the one thing at the american people should know is that democrats can absolutely not be classified as not fighting to protect women in particular from the scourge of domestic violence. that is something i will absolutely not accept. we have been painted with many colors today, but i will not accept -- in fact, i will reject loudly and openly. i remember the pain of trying over and over and over again to get the violence against women act passed, authored by myself and many other cosponsors of a country hence of omnibus bill dealing with every aspect of domestic violence, including, of course, the boyfriend loophole, which still became an obstacle in the senate and never got past. but it left the house with that provision in it, to protect the victims of domestic violence. i have had officers in my jurisdiction admit that the domestic violence call is the most dangerous and some have lost their lives. for everyone that offers an explanation and democrats are not both emotionally tied to an cognizant of the levels of violence in domestic violence of which we can expand this definition, it is soundly rejected by our history and by the legislation that we have offered over and over again. so i would say to mr. massie, some modification of this legislation may be well placed, but i do think the underlying support for allowing the transfer in a domestic violence circumstance is in section d on page six and if it was rita simply, it says the section should not apply to any firearm if the purchaser or person acquiring the firearm has no reason to believe the recipient intends to use the firearm in a crime or is prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms under state law. >> there is an "and" at the end of that. rep. jackson lee: not at this point. there are 10 dead people in buffalo. their names i will put in the record before the end of this markup. some of them are women. with that in mind, i think that we are trying to use falsities to label those of us who have been working on this issue very long. we extended the olive branch for some modification of your language. and that is a decent offer. the bill can move toward the floor and be more defined, the amendment might be appropriate. but, apparently, with all well-intentioned, my good friends grab onto one issue, second amendment. they go on and on about the second amendment, complete false argument, because there are no limitations on the restrictions that could be implemented under the second amendment. several cases uphold that. for every case you have, the supreme court has upheld that. the same thing, using an argument about high can refute again the argument about a good guy or a good lady with a gun. doesn't always rule today. particularly against weapons of mass destruction or in volatile situations like domestic violence this is about trafficking and store purchases we want this section for what it is supposed to stand for, and that is the outrage of people passing on guns in urban and rural communities. i think there is merit to your intent, but i will not accept the high road and contrast what we have done and what this committee is trying to do, my subcommittee in particular and its members on protecting persons against the mystic violence. i ask you to reconsider your amendment. i yelled back at the gentleman from texas seeks recognition. >> you are recognized. >> thank you. mr. massey is right. he is proposing an amendment that will help with domestic violence. it will help protect women who are victims or have been victims of domestic violence. if they accept a gun from a friend after beating, threats, the kind of thing that i dealt with as a prosecutor, i've seen it, and by the way, to have more than one democrat tell us we are not -- we don't care about domestic violence or we are pleased about interest, we have decades of dealing with it. having had women all of these years after leaving the bank, thank me, that i don't even remember because i've had so many felony cases, forgiving their lives back because i saw through the garbage of their husband or their male partner. he was so abusive, and you have no highroad. no right to condescend. you don't know what our lives are. you don't know how we have fought domestic violence. i carry the scars from dealing with that issue. trying to help people over the decades. i dealt with that. we've got a good amendment. we don't need condescension. it is not superfluous. it is quite good, actually. and, to condescend and say we voted against that, there is a lot of garbage in there. there were some good things, but again, immigrants weren't interested in coming together, but to just get a political win or notch on the belt. let me mention some of the things that continue to be brought up, regarding ending assault and multiple magazines. the justice department itself has said that the impact on gun markets and gun violence, talking about the assault weapon ban, including multiple containments and magazines. this should be renewed, it is likely to be a small, too small for reliable measurement. assault weapons will be used before the band. over the course of the 10 year assault weapon ban, mass shooting still occur. including columbine, and according to the fbi, 2015 to 2019, twice as likely to be killed by hands or feet than a rifle. that is what has scared 70 people. it did not use a semi after medic -- semi-automatic rifle. i used those in the army, but what people call assault reference -- weapons, it is barely more than a 22. by the way, experts testify that organized crime likes to use 22 because the round is so difficult to trace to a gun. an assault weapon ban is just a talking point. and, it is political today. you don't want are met -- amendments. you came in with a good amendment like this. you are determined to stop it. handling thousands of felony cases, i don't remember any significant felonies where the perpetrator and in, bought a gun got a background check or bought a gun without one. but they always had to get one. there is no loophole for the gun shows. federal firearm licenses, selling a gun. there has to be. there is no online loophole. that is false as well. most of these mass shootings got approved by background checks, and they bought a gun. so, there is so much that is just talking points, but it will not spell the problem, and we want to stop the problem. >> the gentleman yields back. >> we have recognition big >> moved to strike the last word. >> this is a solemn hearing. it is a place where personal experiences have been shared in terms of the loss of loved ones, grieving as a nation for the loss of 29 of our fellow citizens due to gun violence out of control here in america, mass murder, another yesterday, and this is a solemn moment and forget my friends on the other side of the aisle, they are playing games, trying to muck up the works of a very straightforward piece of legislation. with the intent and name of protecting our kids, trying to protect our kids, and we are looking to raise the age to 21 four someone to purchase a long gun we are trying to prevent gun trafficking. that is what we're talking about right now with this amendment it mr. chairman, it is my humble opinion that if you give fine colleagues on the other side of the aisle an inch, then the nra takes a mile. this amendment appears, or would appear to be quite reasonable, but what it really does is like a trojan horse that it opens up the legislation and puts a big hole that you can drive three mack trucks through at the same time. you know, what is a victim of eight domestic violence? what is a victim who has been threatened or someone who think they have been threatened? is it somebody who receives a phone call? what is a threat. what is a victim of domestic violence? you can drive. that term is defined with sufficient specificity. it will hurt this legislation, and i would submit that just agreeing to this amendment would drive a hole through this legislation. i think we should do what we set out to do, which is to prevent as much gun trafficking as we possibly can. we also don't want to open the door for untraceable weapons. ghost guns. to be allowed to be transferred to so-called victims of so-called domestic violence. whatever demaio is -- the mystic violence is. -- domestic violence. it can be between a man and a woman or a schoolyard bully and somebody in school. what is to keep someone under this amendment from transferring a weapon to someone who is less than 18 years old? we don't want to get into that at all. we don't want to do our work read >> thank you. >> we want storage, so people like ethan young, 15 years old, his mother is here today. she has been sitting dutifully through this hearing to see us do the work that she knows we need to do, and so many other americans know we need to do. let's stop playing games. let's stop smiling and laughing and thinking that we have someone on an amendment. let us go ahead and just pass this legislation. this is good legislation. it is composed of components that have been out there for nothing new. all of this legislation has been out there, and it has been put together in this package to protect our kids. let's protect our kids today. let's stop playing games, and let's move. >> will the gentleman yields? >> with that, i yield to the gentleman from rhode island paid >> i thank you for yielding. there is a fundamental disagreement between our friends on the side of the aisle, and the proponents of this legislation. that is the suggestion that as you inject more guns, you will enhance the safety of individuals. >> you want more guns in schools, and good guys have guns. there are more guns here than any place in the world. as not brought a safety, and even though there is lots of oracle evidence that shows the presence of a gun makes it much more, 10 times more likely that a victim will dive gun violence, injecting guns is not a good solution. it is just a fundamental disagreement of the way we can enhance safety by making sure people of guns, and that is because of what mr. johnson explained. it would allow someone to claim they are a victim or given into a victim of domestic violence without naming the terms being defined. it is again, a premise on the notion. >> the time has expired. is there a rebuttal we had >> move to strike the last word. >> you are recognized. >> i agree with my friend from rhode island. there is a disagreement on the stick -- committee. we should have a right to protect ourselves. we are not talking about forcing someone to take a gun of domestic violence, and take a gun to protect themselves. we are talking about whether someone should have the right to defend themselves and not be violating a law in the process of having a right to defend themselves. in the situation, my colleagues on the others the aisle may very well say that is not to defend myself with a gun. i am willing to suffer whatever consequences there are from the predator and the domestic violence situation, and i don't want the gun. that is fine. you have that right. you have the right to go hide in a closet and do whatever you want to do. mr. matthews is something different. for a man or a woman, who is a victim of domestic violence to stand up and protect themselves, it is a fundamental right that we have in this country. for the democratic colleagues to suggest that they want to take that right away, i think that is really dangerous. i also think this is amusing that people on the committee in the united states house of representatives are asking the question, what is the domestic violence victim. we know what it is. it is an individual who is involved in a relationship that has a victim of an assault or a threat. to suggest that some bully is a domestic violence victim, we all know that is not true. the reasoning issues really are not that if you cared. you would talk right now and say let's define mystic violence victims if there is some doubt about what the definition is, and move forward with this amendment. i yield to my friend from kentucky. >> i thank you. everyone on the others of the aisle is looking for the gotcha. there is no gotcha. i found a fundamental flaw with your bill. i am trying to fix it. i did not think there would be a debate on this. i thought we would recognize it immediately. i would love to take my colleagues offer to work on this later. behind closed doors. but how do you negotiate later in good faith when people who don't even recognize the bill is flawed right now? there is no one on the others of the aisle that has yet conceded that there is an and at the end of the sentence that they keep reading that in order to transfer a firearm and not just be convicted as a gun trafficker, but it has to be a family member or a lawful business agent. there is no domestic violence exception in their bill. i'm trying to add it. i am confounded and confused as to why we would not accept us. >> there should not be. >> would you yield if you are done? >> not quite. >> we've gone through several levels here, and first, they said they didn't know what domestic violence was read >> i'm glad our colleague clear that up for them. they have to introduce multiple bills to deal with that, so now they know that is, but they still have a hard time reading this, and we just were affronted by a claim that women's cannot -- women cannot defend themselves. and it be given that right, and the fundamental problem is it changes the law so that not just the good samaritan can be prosecuted, but now a victim of mystic violence can be prosecuted for receiving a firearm, and that is wrong. i yield back >> i yield to mr. bishop. >> it took me sitting here very candidly until he spoke. i was not getting it. i thought that what we were arguing over was whether your amendment was superfluous. whether it duplicated pieces already in the bill. it turns out that it not the problem. they don't want anybody to be able to defend themselves with a gun. even a person who is a victim of domestic violence. i yield back. >> i yield to mr. gomer. >> i will take time. >> i yield to mr. jordan. >> mr. bishop made a point. this is about taking guns away from people, not letting them have a firearm to protect themselves. where are they going to take us? let's be clear. they are going to take us to a world where only the bad guys can get the guns. that is where they are going to take us. that is where they are taking us to, but that is -- i think you for yielding. i yield back. >> mr. chairman. we are seeking recognition for purposes from rhode island. >> moved to strike last word. >> recognize. >> i am reading a legislation which is before us, and with respect to the issue of gun trafficking, if you begin on page 5, 932, it shall be unlawful for any person it to knowingly purchase to acquire a firearm for the possession of a third party. an example of your neighbor getting a gun for an individual, there is no third party. this would not be prohibited under the statute. it would not apply because it is not being criminalized. in the hypothetical commie city neighbor is getting a bird for someone who is a victim of domestic violence. there was are two things. the neighbor -- no. i have my time. the statute says a person who acquires a gun for a third party, from one party. >> one parties a purchaser, the other party is a bit and to whom you are getting a gun. >> a neighbor gets a gun through a victim of domestic violence trade there are two people. there is no third party. it doesn't apply. >> i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. do you seek recognition? >> strike the last word. >> you are recognize. >> i yield my time to mr. goldberg. >> i appreciate that. i am flabbergasted that after years of hearing democrats talk about domestic violence, to now here democrats say they don't know what it is, they don't know what the definition is, that is amazing. amazing. people on our side under two -- understand what domestic violence is. so, we can talk about that later. but, when it comes to that, i am also amazed, the scenario that was talked about. there is a third party. if you are not acquiring a gun or a third party, you are not guilty of the crime. of course, there is a third party. that is a good prosecutor. they would not be able to take a position. they would be able to go after the third party who is the victim of what those on the republican side know is domestic violence. like liz said, playgrounds are not domestic violence. we understand that. if you have ever prosecuted, you will have defended, but after prosecuting, i can assure you i know what it is, and i'm surprised more democrats don't, but this amendment will be helpful to the bill. it will help to avoid doing terrible injustice, which is one of the reasons it is good not to rush into a bill within an emotional basis for the bill. it is why it cooling-off. is important. you make sure you consider the very things like mr. massey has found. to fix one of the injustices in the bill. if you care about injustice, you say, he's got a good point. if you still don't know what domestic violence is, i would be gladness -- glad to work with you to get a definition that will help you understand. the evolution of domestic violence. legislation that there has been. in the meantime, please, this is going to create a whole that you can drive a truck through. how about a tiny hole that creates just enough to protect a victim and not have more injustice because our committee was hell-bent pass legislation without input from people on our side, and dealt extensively with this issue for decades. i appreciate the amendment, and i appreciate the chair for yielding, and i yield back. >> mr. chairman, i am sorry that my cameras not on. i've lost it, here. i would add, onto the point that was just made, it is germane to the amendment, and i just saw, prior. it is clear this bill has been rush. rather than come in and work with republicans to get additional items that we should be considering, this is why we are here with these amendments. i think it was mr. jones who said, what do you have? this is what we have. you are hearing that there are legitimate concerns. a rushed process that is not functioning properly. we should take the time to do this in the right way. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. a question occurs on the amendment. we'll all those say i? >> i. opposed, no. >> no. the nose habit. >> i request a recorded vote. >> clerk will call the roll. >> no. mr. nadler votes no. miss lofgren votes no. mr. secondly votes no. mr. colin votes no. mr. johnson votes no. mr. deutch votes no. miss bass votes i. -- miss bass votes no. mr. jeffries votes no. mr. cicilline votes no. mr. swallow votes no. mr. lou votes no. mr. raskin votes no. midstride paul votes no. miss demings votes no. miss scanlon votes no. miss garcia votes no. mr. negus votes no. miss bass votes no. mr. stanton -- miss dean votes no. miss escobar votes no. mr. jones votes no. miss ross votes no. miss bush votes no. mr. jordan votes yes. mr. chavez votes yes. mr. gomer votes yes. mr. iselle votes yes. mr. buck votes yes. mr. gates votes yes. mr. johnson of louisiana votes yes. mr. biggs votes yes. mr. mcclintock votes yes. mr. steube votes yes. mr. tiffany. mr. tiffany votes yes. mr. massey votes yes. mr. royce votes yes. mr. bishop votes yes. ms. fischbach votes yes. ms. sparks votes yes. mr. fitzgerald votes yes. mr. ben's votes yes. mr. owens votes yes. >> clear the report. how my recorded? >> you are not recorded. >> i vote yes. >> mr. stanton votes yes. >> does mr. stanton want to vote yes? ok. approve the report. >> there are 20 yeses and 24 notes. >> the notice habit, and the amendment is not agreed to. is there any further amendment? >> mr. chairman. >> for what purpose is this? >> point of order. >> what is deserved. wait a minute. for what purpose is the center seeking recognition. >> a point of order is reserved for the 14th amended. >> an amendment to the amendment and a substitute -- print >> mr. chairman. >> i will consider this as read. the gentleman will have five meds to explain this amendment. >> thank you. as mentioned in the opening statement, i would like to think that there are ways in which we can work together in a bipartisan manner to reduce a better product then we are currently considering today. the amendment that i offer now, like the one i offered earlier in this markup is one of the ways we could work together. i amendment is straightforward. it would amend the safety officer program to make eligible benefits for retired police officers who do not -- who are killed in public or private security roles to be eligible to retire. while actively protecting the community, business, school, neighborhood, or other entity in a paid security role. i offered an amendment three weeks ago. you may recall that you pledge to work together on the issue to go forward and i agreed to withdraw the amendment. first, the other legislation move forward within days before we had any chance to include my proposal. i don't hold you responsible for that. i was a bit miffed about the fact it did not happen. more importantly, we witnessed a high profile selfless act by a police officer trying to protect his community days after the committee considered changes to the bill. a retired buffalo police officer confronted the shooter and that supermarket where he worked as a security guard. tragically, he died as a result of that confrontation, but is selfless sacrifice help to protect friends, neighbors, and many others. he had shown that same dedication as a buffalo police officer for 30 years before retiring in 20 out team -- in 2018. they promoted him to lieutenant and awarded him the medal of honor, but his family were not received benefits under the benefits program, just as we saw with another retired african-american officer in st. louis. his family will not receive benefits under the program because he died after retirement serving his community in a private capacity. being a police officer is a very difficult and dangerous job. i think we can all agree on that, but it is essential to the maintenance of a civil society, a fact recognized by congress. in 1960 eight, congress authorized the creation of the public safety officers benefits program which provides death and education benefits to police officers and their families when a police officer -- >> mr. chairman, we have no audio. >> we know he is frozen but we are waiting to see if he comes back. >> -- to contribute to society. can you hear me now? >> yes. >> ok. often times retired officers continue to serve their communities in a similar capacity as they had as a police officer and work a school resource officers and provide security to hospitals, office buildings, places of employment, small businesses, apartments, a whole range of places where they provide security. by all accounts, they are the types of people we want serving as police officers, and even though they both died serving the communities they love, neither family is entitled to benefits under the public safety officers benefits program because they retired from the police force. we have thousands and thousands of examples of police officers near retirement or who have recently retired. they have been trained with taxpayer dollars and many want to continue to serve the communities they love. making the common sense change my amendment process will encourage more dedicated properly trained police officers do just that, which will ultimately make our community safer. that is what my colleagues say they want to do, make our community safer, where this amendment would do that, so i urge my colleagues to support this common sense amendment and i yelled back. >> does the gentlelady insist on a point of order? >> mr. chairman, i do insist on my point of order. it is not germane. >> i agree that although i certainly appreciate where the gentleman is coming from, this amendment is way beyond the scope of this bill. this bill has nothing to do with public safety officers or their rewards, and i am constrained to rule that out of order. >> i disagree vehemently, but if that is the way the chairman will rule, that is the way the chairman will rule. i would not waste the committee's time on a boat. i yelled back. >> i appreciate that. what purpose does the gentlelady -- >> i do think it is important to note this committee did pass a public safety officers benefit during police week, and for him and our colleagues to know that there was an offer, and the author continues on separate legislation mr. chairman that you are now speaking about to be able to assist in the very issues that you are raising. so, we understand and are appreciably sympathetic on this important issue, and i know the committee, the chairman will look as they have said already to work with you on some legislation. -- it says in individual is ready at 18 years of age or over is required to register, every male individual is required to register for selective service. this would permit any male individual at 18 years of age to purchase a firearm. the purpose of this section of the bill is to prevent people 18 years of age through 20 to purchase firearms, because there is a massive body of research that shows 18-year-olds are far more likely to engage on violence than people older than that. on those grounds, i oppose the amendment. i yield back. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition. >> strike the last word. you just said they are not mature enough to make the decision. when 16-year-olds decide who gets to make the laws in this country, 18-year-olds can purchase a firearm, and now we are saying if you sign up for selective service and go to defend your country, you are not qualified for those rights. juergen to take an oath to defend. i mean this is just another good amendment from the gentleman from kentucky and i would yield to him. >> is the gentleman aware that until you're 21 you cannot go into a bar and get a shot of bourbon. >> i am aware of that. in kentucky, we would make an exception for that as well. [laughter] when you went to college and when i went to college, those were not the rules. i yield to the gentleman from kentucky. >> it says males from 18 to 21, the maturation of certain parts of the brain have not occurred, so why do we allow them to fight for their country and join the military? are we conscripting people who don't even have mature brains into the surface of this country? i'm sorry, somebody needs to mute. someone needs to mute the microphone. so that is why i'd tied this to selective service. it is also not the case that everyone who is 18 is registered with selective service. law-abiding individuals have registered with selective service, and it is probably the case, although i do not know this for sure that somebody without a father, somebody with mental issues, somebody who has not been in school for the last two years who has committed one of these heinous acts is probably not registered with the selective service. i yield back to the general and from ohio. >> for what purpose does the gentlelady from pennsylvania seek recognition. >> i moved to strike the last words. >> recognized. >> i oppose the amendment because it does got the purpose of raising the age, but only with respect to young men, because only young men are required to register for selective service. almost all of u.s. male citizens 18 through 25 are required to register, so it seems a very bizarre carved out to allow young men who by definition have not yet been trained for the armed forces and only young men to be allowed to purchase weapons. now there is already in this bill an exception for those who have undergone the training and are members of the armed forces, so i would oppose this amendment and yield back. >> the gentlelady yields back. who else seeks recognition? for what purpose? >> i want to speak on the amendment. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> the gentleman is making an important point about what we ask in the case of currently men with respect to registering for selective service, and here we are saying in the chairman said it, you are mature enough to be drafted. you are mature enough to be forced into service in defense of the country. we can debate that service separately, but you are not mature enough to have a weapon and be able to defend yourself. it begs the question about what do we believe adulthood is in this country. the chairman mentioned 21 for drinking. it is a privilege, not a right, but it is a privilege, so we make determinations about age appropriate level of maturity. we say in this country you have reached the age of maturity for virtually everything at age 18, notwithstanding some things. >> with the gentleman yield for a quick question? why is drinking a privilege not a right? >> i know that we set the age of the constitution, but it is not a natural right. it is not a natural right. what was that? >> i object. >> i know that you do. i knew you would. my point is simply what were talking about here in terms of our right to defend ourselves and what were talking bout as a country about how we determine the age of maturity, this is an important debate and important amendment that the gentleman of kentucky offers for raising the principal and the question, we are blurring the lines of distinction for what we are saying is or is not reaching the age of maturity in this country. are you or are you not an adult? you will be asked to be drafted and go to war, can be tried as an adult, held accountable as an adult, able to vote, and all of these things they get associated with being an adult, and here we are saying no, you are not mature enough for that. that is at the heart of the constitutional question, which was raised by the person from north carolina, but put aside the ninth circuit opinion. right? what is the constitutionality of it? put aside the supreme court in the ninth circuit, what is our opinion, the members of the united states congress and house judiciary about how you start parsing out rights based on the sensibilities of your vote, as opposed to some consistency in recognition, but if you are an adult, we treat you as such. i would add this entire discussion and going back to the gentleman earlier, but i still find it astounding that our colleagues on the others of the aisle camp recognize the very significant flaw and seem to ignore that provision in the sense that we are setting this baseline standard that you cannot buy a firearm as a gift for another person, even if you know that person not to be a prohibited individual or no that person or have no reason to believe they would be dangerous. we are setting a baseline standard for that, which is a pretty significant advancement off of current law and trade of straw purchases for prohibited persons, but in any event, this is an important amendment, support the amendment from the gentleman of kentucky. >> thank you. the gentleman from texas. what is the morality of conscripting people whose brains are not fully formed, as the chairman suggested? would it be moral to conscript a 12-year-old, 14-year-old, i think we all agree not to but when you're 18, 19, 20, you are covered by the constitution and if you can be conscripted and do have the ability to make an informed decision as to whether to join the military, evaluate the risks of doing so, then you should enjoy all the rights -- i stop my time to yield -- you should enjoy all the rights you are defending by virtue of your service. as my colleague said, it is a bizarre carveout because it only applies to males, who are the only ones could be conscripted, but i would be happy to include females as a subject of celexa service, i am not in favor of. his time has expired. >> the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does he seek recognition? for what purpose does mr. fitzgerald seek recognition? he needs to unmute. mr. fitzgerald? if you want to speak, you must unmute. if no one else seeks recognition -- for what purpose does mr. gates seek recognition? >> i want to strike the last words. i've want to know that his mute was never undone. i have a few thoughts on the measure. >> will the gentleman yield for a moment? >> yes, sir. >> i just want to answer a couple of people. i am not sure who at this point. we recognize different ages is for different purposes, 18 for the draft from a 16 for driving in some states. we recognize 21 for drinking. so we recognize different ages for different purposes. that is all i want to say. >> can i have a second to engage that? >> ideal to the gentleman. >> with the chairman join me in cosponsoring a bill to raise the draft age to 21? >> no. >> the chairman feels their brains are not fully formed at 18, 20. >> the research does indicate that in certain respects, but the selective service needs, if the country needs people, it needs people. >> it needs people whose brains are not fully formed? >> in a certain respect, yes. >> hoping that mind is fully formed at 40. >> i hope so. >> we will not put that to a vote. [laughter] >> i support mr. matthews amendment. i think raising the age for gun ownership to 21 of any kind is problematic, and if it did not offend the second amendment, our recognition of the patriotism of the people who sign up for the selective service, and if it did not offend federalism, i would not support it, because i don't think it would be particularly effective. assuming the typical school shooter scenario, where you have a crazed 19-year-old, if they are that determine where they are training in a backyard, like they were in the parkland case, which was reported to the fbi, if they are writing manifestoes, in the case of the buffalo shooter, if they are stockpiling ammunition, like in the case of uvalde, they will find their way to precisely this type of weapon despite this increase in the ability to buy it legally. and second, i do not think that these people would not wait a year or two. i don't know that you gained a lot from people exercising their trauma a little bit later because you artificially moved the line, so i think raising the age for gun ownership comes at a really high constitutional cost and it yields very little in terms of an ability to stop any of these violent events. i yield to the gentleman of kentucky for any of these neurological observations. >> i have no further comments. >> i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. mr. fitzgerald, one more time? mr. fitzgerald? you are recognize? ok. mr. -- does anyone else seek recognition? if not, then the question occurs on the amendment, all in favor say yes. opposed, no. >> i had my hand up. >> mr. biggs? do you seek recognition? >> i do. i raised my hand. >> the gentleman is recognize. >> thanks, mr. chairman. again, i hope that mr. fitzgerald is able to get his microphone going, but i want to talk to a point on this amendment that mr. gates was just alluding to, and that was again the use or attempt to obtain weapons, plan mass shootings by people within this particular age demographic, so recently well, actually, it has been more than recently, but one thing that we saw about under a gao study that some time ago was the frequent use or attempted use of young people to use fake ids to get weapons, and so this is really not going to do much with that, the underlying bill, but i would say that just out of sheer respect of the young men who have to register for selective service, you would say if you're going to make yourself available by compulsory means to be drafted into the service and have your entire life put in jeopardy and in absolute control by the government, which is what happens when you are conscripted, so just pure respect would say let's go ahead and acknowledge that and allow these people, these young men to be able to obtain a weapon to defend themselves. that seems rational to me. and so with that, mr. chairman, i will yield to the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. fitzgerald, if he is there. with that, he does not seem to be. so ideal back. >> i yield back. >> does anyone else seek recognition. all in favor say yes. opposed, no. we continue. the no's habit. the amendment is not agreed to. >> i request corded boat. >> the clerk will call the roll. >> [roll call] >> someone should mute their microphone. >> [indiscernible] >> [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] >> are there any other members who wish to be recorded who have not been recorded? clerical report. >> mr. chairman -- >> mr. correa? >> no. >> you have to turn your camera on. >> no. >> he votes no. >> clerical report. >> 19 yes and 24 no's. >> the amendment is not agreed to. why does mr. mcclintock seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. >> the clerk will report the minute. the point of order is reserved. >> amendment to the amendment on the nature of a substitute hr 7910. >> without objection the amendment will be considered as read. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain his amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. several members of the committee have asked for republican solutions to the growing and violent crime we have seen in recent years and i will gladly do so. we know what works because we have seen these policies work before. vigorously prosecuting them and putting them in jail works. executing murderers players. backing the police and prosecuting criminals works. identifying and confining the dangerously mental ill so we can treat them and keep them from hurting themselves or others works. and armed citizens who can return fireworks. it is this last provision that ensures there is at least one armed guard able to defend our children if a gunman appears on the campus if they're receiving federal grants for school safety. i asked repeatedly why we take it for granted that that there be an armed guard at a bank, and yet they go busy or when there is an armed guard in the school to protect our children. the amendment says if the district is receiving federal grants for school safety that they must allow staff with concealed weapons permits valid in their state to carry those weapons on school grounds, if they wish to do so. a retired police officer who has become a teacher as a second career wants to protect themselves and his students against the would-be gunman should be allowed to do so. that after all is the entire purpose of a concealed weapons permit, for self-defense. it is not for hunting or target shooting, it is solely for self-defense. the citizen has met the requirements of their state to carry a concealed weapon to defend themselves ought to be allowed to carry that firearm to defend the children under their care. i pointed out earlier the incident where a gunman with an ar 15-style rifle fired at a graduation party on private property the day after the massacre at the so-called gun free zone of robb elementary school. unarmed woman was in that crowd and immediately return fire, killing the would-be mass shooter on the spot. think about this, if that graduation party had been hilton school property, the result would likely have been dozens of innocent people dead and wounded because that woman would have been legally forbidden from having that gun on the school ground so that she could return fire. they would have had to wait many agonizingly long minutes until the police arrived, while the gunman ran amok. that is what happened at our schools time and again when they have been tacked gunman who do not obey those laws. so the question is are we willing to protect our children in schools with at least as much force as we protect our money in our banks, or for that matter the merchandise in our homes? this is something that should be implemented immediately that could have will have stop massacre at uvalde, just as it did stop the would-be massacre in charleston, west virginia the very next day. this does not depend on criminals obeying the law or depend on some date ever so slowly maybe reducing the availability of the 400 million firearms. it does not make self-defense harder for honest and decent people. in fact, it make self-defense easier for honest and decent people and it makes future attacks on our schools much more likely and infinitely more dangerous to those who are contemplating them. that is the simple issue this amendment addresses, are our children in our schools as worthy of protection as the money in our bank for the merchandise in our shops. that is the question. i yield back. >> would the gentleman from california -- yes, the gentleman yielded back. does the gentlelady insist on a point of order? >> i insist on a point of order. >> this is out of the scope of the legislation, although of good intent, it is not tied to programs in the legislation, and therefore is not germane. >> the chair is prepared to rule. i agree with the point of order. this amendment amends a program that is not within the big, and therefore outside the scope of the bill and therefore not germane. the amendment is not germane. are there any other amendments? if there are no further amendments -- >> i have an amendment. >> for what purpose does he seek recognition? >> i have amendment at the does dealing with the report. >> the point of order is reserved. the clerk will appoint the amendment. >> the amendment and the amendment to hr 7910. >> the amendment will be considered as read in the german is recognized for five minutes to explain his amendment. >> my amendment is a reporting amendment. we need to get some information from the doj, attorney general on the existing gun laws. right now, the background check for the latest year we have numbers issued 112,000 denials, yet only 12 of those were federally prosecuted, so presumably they were rejected. the presumption is you are rejected because you are an ineligible person to buy a firearm and you tried to buy a firearm. why were they not prosecuted to a greater extent? why were only 12 out of 112,000 prosecuted? the dirty little secret is most of those were false denials. you might say it is better to be overly safe and to let a few through the cracks. the problem is the current system is riddled with errors. if you have a similar name, phonetic, phonetically pronounced or spelled to someone else -- >> does the gentleman yield? >> let me finish my amendment and i would yield to the chairman. so what happens with the false denials is that within racial and ethnic groups that share similar surnames in first names, you get a higher percentage of false denials, and some of these false denials are overturned, but a lot are not. individuals who do not have the money or the resources to pursue this legally often either have to turn to an individual sale or do not complete the purchase at all, yet they were law-abiding citizens who had the misfortune of sharing a similar name. the problem with this, and this is why i want this report, we are fairly certain that blackmails our three times more likely to be falsely denied during the background check and hispanic males are twice, two times more likely to be denied falsely during a background check, because they share within their racial and ethnic group similar names to people who are incarcerated, and we do have over incarceration in this country and there are a lot of blackmails incarcerated, so you have the misfortune if you are a law-abiding citizen within that racial group with a similar name that you are more likely to get a false denial. so what my amendment seeks to do is require a report and this would not turn over any personally identifiable data, all of this data is collected on the form 4473. they have the data and they need to give it to is to determine if there are racial disparities. this report would require the attorney general to tell us how many background checks were determined ineligible, how many people and report this by race, ethnicity, national origin, sex, gender, age, average income, and english language proficiency, if available for most of those demographic data points are available. if there is nobody else that wants to speak, i yield to the chairman for his question. ok, i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. does the gentlelady insist on a point of order? >> i do not insist on my point of forwarder. >> she does not insist on a point of order and we are prepared to accept this amendment. >> i will allow you to accept it. i will not request a recorded vote. you have great judgment on this regard. >> thank you. all those in favor. opposed the opinion of the chair , the amendment is agreed to. are there any further amendments. for what purpose does mr. fitzgerald seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have an amendment at the desk. >> point of order is reserved and the clerk will report the amendment. >> amendment to the amendment hr 7910 offered by mr. fitzgerald. >> with out objection, the amendment will be considered in the gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain his amendment. >> mr. chairman in 2018, state legislature, we were able to develop and move a bipartisan effort. we worked together to pass a bill and act 143 appropriate money in the fiscal year toward grants through out wisconsin, district and private schools, independent charter schools were eligible, as well as tribal schools. it required that the schools submit safety plans to approve their physical security to the attorney general, the doj of wisconsin. the big was an unbelievably tremendous success in our state. doj awarded $94.5 million to 1325 school safety grant recipients. and what we thought we would do after talking with myself and congressman tiffany is to repurpose some of the dollars that are already related to the big and simply see if we could not find a way of allowing either states that have moved forward, and a lot of these were initiated as a result of parkland, the stoneman douglas high school, or if there are states out there contemplating making these moves, and if you look at the eight bills before us today that have been pushed into this omnibus bill, and i question as to whether some of this stuff has been cross checked, especially personal security items included, but if you look at those, none of those address what happened in texas. there are weaknesses when it comes to physical security and a lot of the school buildings, so what i have is an amendment that i think is crafted in a way that is not heavy-handed and does not say the federal government will in fact issue these credits directly. it will work with the states to develop a strategy. i heard some members say that hardening schools is not the answer, but quite honestly a lot of people say if there is anything we can agree on, it would be to improve the physical security of these buildings. some of these were built in the 1930's and 1940's on the stuff has not been addressed. we could make this available in a bipartisan fashion. there is support for this type of concept, and at the end of the day, that is one thing we are looking for here, so i would hope that we could add this amendment to this bill and ed might garner some bipartisan support, and i didn't want to make a comment about one of the amendments offered by mr. massey. in 1981 come by to basic training in fort jackson, south carolina, and there were 40 17-year-olds, maybe some 18-year-old's. i don't remember. we were all issued m-16s. we used those on live fire ranges. we were taught to assemble, disassemble, and clean those weapons and take care of those weapons like they were our own, so the idea that a 17-year-old does not have the ability to understand how a firearm works or whether or not they can be responsible or trusted with one, it is happening in our armed each and every day in new groups of basic trainees that makes their way through any of the services. so i just put that out there as something that is real and happening each and every day. and i hope that the members think about that before they jump to quick me on some of this legislation that i think is moving hastily and as not necessarily been thought through, so with that, i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. does the gentlelady insist on a point of order? >> i do not. >> i recognize myself. in opposition to the amendment. the amendment is well-intentioned clearly. unfortunately, condition participation a firearm safe storage program which you want to promote, which we want wide participation in the program for obvious reasons, and in an unrelated program, addressed in the labor committee, so with all due respect for the good intentions behind this amendment, i think it is ill advised to condition participation in on any other program because you want to encourage it, especially in a program that is best looked at in another committee. i yield back. >> i would like to strike the last word. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you. in spite of what president biden says that does not help to harden schools, we found out as representative fitzgerald said that it does help in wisconsin. i have seen it in schools that my kids have attended over the years. i was one of those people who was really skeptical of putting limitations on how people enter school buildings. after all, i remember 40 or 50 years ago when i used to go to school and it was easy in, easy out, but the world has changed and we in wisconsin, we changed in 2018 and offered these grants , and as representative fitzgerald said, they have been successful. the one drawback i heard from school administrators i called last night, they said we wish we would have had it sooner because we would have already acted, but many schools have not acted and were able to take advantage of that. there were over 1000 schools in wisconsin that took advantage of this to in many cases harden their schools and make the school safer, so it was a successful program, and in talking to one of my former colleagues in the legislature last night, they said they are considering additional measures, and i think that gets to the other point in regards to putting this hearing out in such a rushed manner. we should be taking a look at what is the responsibility of the states also, because even in regards to red flag laws, chapter 21, in wisconsin, there is a procedure already in place in wisconsin to deal with someone who has psychological problems, whatever it may be, a threat to the community that is already in place. as we are seeing, including your comments, mr. chairman, just a minute ago, saying this is well-intentioned and there may be a place for this, we have been hearing on this for admin after amendment today, and it goes to show that when you rush a hearing on only a couple of days notice to do it for messaging purposes and not consulting, not just with us, the minority, but with many other people also out there in the public may be having detailed hearings about this as far as what should be done and being serious about this, rather than using it for messaging purposes. we would end up with a much better product, and i think representative fitzgerald has come forward with a very good amendment and i urge support that it. it has been successful in wisconsin. it has been alluded to by others that it has been successful in florida. these are two good places to look at it as an example of what can work in stop and hopefully prevent additional horrific events like happened in uvalde. and i yield back mr. chairman. >> for what purposes does mr. cohen seek recognition? >> strike the last word. >> recognize. >> i watched the entire markup in my office when i was not here and i know but seven commonalities common themes that go through the republican amendments. not one result in any ammunition not being sold, produced, or out there, not one would reduce a gun or a rifle, assault weapon, or any other weapon from being in society. nothing would hurt any of the nra's business partners or they would lose a single penny because the ammunition and the guns would continue to be available, sold, legal matter what. and that seems to be there theme. they come up with some ideas about recommending people who could be 70 or 60 years old, retired military or law enforcement, go to the schools and provide the security, which was not provided in uvalde by people who were training in people who have been in training in december 2021. despite that, they were totally incompetent. and some of them said we have rushed into this. we did not rush into background hearings. we had two background check bills that passed this congress, supported by 90% of the public. they were not rushed. they had a republican vote. so regardless if we give the republicans a long time to think about bills and lots of notice, or very little notice, they vote the same way. they vote no. there is nothing we can do to bring them along, except one or two of the folks who had the guts, courage, and honesty to vote to impeach donald trump or to impanel a january 6 commission look into the worst and most concerning back against this country, and insurrection to overthrow the government and overturn the rightful election of the president of the united states, other than the people who had the guts to do that, we don't have hope for a vote. i yield back the balance of my time. >> for what purpose does mr. owens seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. chairman. as my colleagues have expressed today, there are no words to describe the horrific tragedy that occurred in the elementary school. i am a father and grandfather. every life is a gift. i know this from my experience of raising a beautiful family. this markup is a hasty, not serious, and not designed to find true bipartisan solutions. we look at real solutions that improve the safety of classrooms. this package is political and it is a disgrace to those we have lost in those grieving families. we need an evidence-based solution so that victims and grieving families are front and center in every conversation we have. tomorrow, the unused covid funding from the american rescue plan will be used to improve safety and to her in schools through evidenced-based security measures. i welcome my colleagues from across the aisles to support this to protect our children. it will immediately amend the plans under the american rescue plans to use those funds to address without delay their school safety needs. it will require the state to immediately approve an amendment that allows schools to begin this process without delay. the school safety act now in the house shepherded by two representatives, directs the department of homeland security to establish a federal clearinghouse on school safety best practices. this is to be done in coordination with the department of education, justice, health and human services. this clearinghouse would be the primary federal resource on best practices for schools, parents, law enforcement, and local officials. this bill does not require additional funding and was named after two of the parkland, florida shooting victims. now with this common sense bipartisan bill addressed by democratic leadership whose priorities over the decades have been to progressively restrict law-abiding citizens from the secondment rights. remember, this is a simple clearinghouse database of state-by-state best practices. the day after the uvalde tragedy, democrats said, majority leadership or ignored it. that meat make sure parents across the country understand how not seriously democratic leadership is in securing the safety of our children. we have a president who states that he does not believe in proposals that will harden schools. we have a senate majority leader who refuses to allow a federal database of best practices to be used by schools, parents, law enforcement, and local officials. the rejection of the safety act two weeks ago prevents us in the new future of gathering school safety ideas to be recorded and shared nationally with other schools, like those in uvalde. we are committed to addressing that. our schools must return to safe places of learning where students can learn free from the fear of violence in any form. this is what our students deserve and what our parents want. this is what our focus should be as policymakers. the answer to this painful chapter is not the continuation of the decades long progressive attack on our constitutional rights these are rights that we have americans that are not available in other despotic countries like russia, china, venezuela, and other countries that restrict their citizens from protecting themselves. there is currently $100 billion of unused covid relief funds sitting in the secondary school emergency relief fund. let's get serious as a body and make it possible in the next couple of months to harden our schools and protect our children and start to share best safety practices across the country. for this reason, i support this amendment introduced by my friend from wisconsin. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? >> it is a great state and i will continue to live in the great state of texas. chairman, thank you. first, i want to indicate that where we can work together today , and i hope that there is someone who captures that point, mr. massey, her amendment was accepted and it is interestingly enough, it captures my legislation from the accidental firearms transfer reporting act, and so here we are with a moment where we have not only compromise but agreement, so we thank you for the that amendment. i rise from a mr. chairman, strike the last word, thank and pardon me for not, it is shocking to me that we continue to hear how rushed these hearings are. when your house is on fire, there is no time for the fire department to build a new fire station, to train a new class of new firemen, fire women, we have no time for that. you need a fire truck. you need, as they say, the ladder truck. you need the pumper. you need those right now. you need those right now. i am stunned if we look at the district of where my friends have come from, we have documented thousands probably in totality or hundreds upon deaths -- hundreds upon hundreds of deaths by firearms in your congressional districts. would you tell those marine family members, let's wait as we've done for decades? we waited in 2004 with a republican president, republican house, republican senate, and we couldn't get anything done to extend the ban on assault weapons. we have seen a brazen rampage of young men using assault weapons mixed with the toxicity of white supremacy as evidenced in buffalo, new york, and let me take a moment to call those names. roberta drury, margus morrison, aubrey mcneil, aaron salter, geraldine talley, celestine chaney, heyward patterson, katherine massey, pearl young, and ruth whitfield. in addition, it is important to take note of the gentlemen's amendment, mr. fitzgerald, who wants to take money from the safe storage grant program, which would in fact undermine the ability to secure young people at the point of purchase to ensure there are best practices to keep young people from getting guns, and ethan's law that deals with the issues of guns in residential homes. why would you want to do that when we can read the roll, january 23, 2018? again, a situation where a gun came from an unlocked closet. in texas, 813 and 10 year old. a four-year-old boy in ohio. the previous one in colorado. a four-year-old boy in arizona, a father in shreveport, louisiana. a three-year-old is dead. a five-year-old is dead in pensacola, florida. california, a 13-year-old boy shot himself, and after he his brother and others had unsecured guns -- that means they were not there at the point of purchase. a five-year-old was reaching for candy stored on top of her refrigerator and found a gun. a three-year-old found his mother's gun in the living room of their home, shooting himself in the head. our house is on fire. our house is on fire. these precious babies, we have already heard one died trying to save others by calling 911. others smeared themselves with blood. others reported that there are children alive, nine of us at least. we are in a crisis, our house is on fire, and i believe this amendment can be better suited in working together with other committees and those of us interested in this issue. >> the gentlewoman yields back. mr. gomer? for what purpose? >> move to strike the last word. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we have heard that 90% support certain things that are included. i can't help but wonder anytime i hear those numbers of support just exactly what people were asked. for example, a red flag laws, most people don't understand what red flag laws are, but if you explain to them that it would include things like we saw during the obama-biden administration when the v.a. was instructed to inquire of veterans who pays their bills, and if the response is a spouse or someone else -- in my case, i am married to somebody with an mba -- if i say, my wife pays most of the bills, that during the obama-biden administration would become a red flag to prevent me from being able to buy a gun. the presumption of that red flag order was if you are not paying your own bills, you are not mentally competent enough to have a gun. when people started finding out that was going on, they got upset, and that included people who i am sure if you asked, i would be ok with a red flag law. they had bureaucrats to determine whether or not they were entitled to a second amendment right. it is important when we start using percentages of support that we make sure people knew what they were doing and saying. i think this is a good amendment, well reasoned, well-thought-out, and i understand we just had a shooting, but i go back to the founders who did something that no one else had done in the founding of a country when they included language like, "all men were created equal," generically speaking, and the original declaration of independence included the longest grievance, how bad slavery was. you do not have founding documents and any other country where the founders admitted things were not as they should be and something like slavery was wrong and bad and harmful to the country. these people were admitting in what they signed that there were problems. there were people that defeated that or had the provision struck, but to say that all were equal in that document, this is an incredible country. when thomas jefferson who put that grievance in there and put in the part about people being equal, knowing at that time that it was aspirational, an admittance that things were not right, it is a pretty profound country, and that is what we have, but it has become so political that now we are being urged to pass constitutionally questionable, if not outright unconstitutional provisions because we are in a hurry that we've got to do something, and i know there are a lot of politicians that feel that way. rahm emanuel's famous line "we shouldn't let a good crisis go to waste" is still holding true. we are having a crisis, but especially now when there has been a crisis, when we have had tragedy, it is even more important that we use god's name, those of us who believe in the power of prayer, to ask for guidance instead of trying to shove guidance from mount olympus in d.c. down the throats of people that don't know what is coming. i yield back. >> for what purpose does mr. biggs seek registration? >> i moved to strike the last word. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. a recent trafalgar poll shows that a vast majority of american shows americans -- support having armed guards at schools, and that is what mr. mcclintock's amendment was speaking to. mr. mcclintock's amendment does provide a remedy and a way to safeguard our children in schools. mr. owens' amendment does the same. mr. fitzgerald's amendment does the same, and i support those amendments, but i refuse to mislead my family, our children and community that the provisions of this bill will solve the gun safety issue we are having with our schools. this notion of "we have to act" -- it will not change or protect schools from violent criminals. this bill, if you take the build that would make felons of americans under the age of 21 who own ar-15's and hundreds of similar firearms, making americans felons with kids in the home unless guns are locked up, felons of americans who would buy any magazines with more than 10 rounds of ammunition. you didn't like the domestic violence victim protection amendment of thomas massie, which it would seem to me is so necessary. you have a bill that mimics storage requirements found in a previous bill on federal and tribal properties. you have a bill that makes felons out of americans who own an unserious live gun, a so-called ghost gun appeared to have a bill that makes felons of americans who own a bump stock. the left wants to put this tyranny into law. that is just part of it. this bill does not get into solving the problem. it would not have stopped uvalde. it would not have protected the folks in tulsa, and it would not have stopped the buffalo shooting. you would be hard-pressed to find any of these mass shootings that would be resolved and defended against these demons with guns by using any of the laws that comprise of this bill. when the law-abiding when weapons are confronted, the department of justice has indicated they stop crimes in more than 1.5 million instances per year in using their own guns. democrats today and this administration have indicated they desire to take away guns of law-abiding citizens. they hope to nullify or repeal the second amendment through statutory means. democrats have intimated that republicans are involved with murderous collusion with mass shooters for not supporting their legislation when republicans have strongly suggested we could provide safety to our children by hardening school facilities as well as having armed guards at the schools. the trafalgar poll shows almost 50% of democrats and a super majority of republicans support this avenue. these amendments that have been offered that you are rejecting are ways to actually get at protecting our children, and it is a crying shame that you flush these out because you deem them unworthy. these are sincere ideas, real ideas. they are ideas that work. mr. chairman, to that end, i would urge everyone to support this amendment, and with that i yield back. >> for what purpose does the member, mr. cicilline, rise? >> i moved to strike the last word. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> i want to respond to the claim that nothing in this bill would change any mass shootings. this is the 15th time our colleagues on the others of the aisle has said that. it is not only deeply offensive. it is inaccurate. i'm going to for one last time give some examples of why certain provisions we will pass hopefully soon in this legislation would have prevented some of the killing that has occurred. first is a report of large capacity ammunition magazines, it has 14 pages with seven entries on each page, so over 80 incidents involving large capacity ammunition's and the death resulting in a series of shootings. raising the age, another provision of this legislation, in uvalde, the shooter would not have been able to buy a gun. 22 people were killed. 17 people were injured. buffalo, new york, 10 people were killed, three injured. that killer would not have been able to buy the weapon. santa fe, texas, 10 people were killed. parkland, florida, 2018, 17 people were killed. 17 were injured. 27 people were killed, including the shooter, and at columbine in april of 1999, 15 people were killed, including 24 injured. those would not have been able to happen if the killers could not get the gun because they were not old enough yet. ghost guns, which are also addressed, have resulted in santa clara, california, killed three people, three injured. in california, 18 people were injured. santa monica, california, six people killed, four people injured. the shooter that used bump stocks in las vegas, nevada, 60 people were killed, 411 injured. provisions that relate to safe storage, in 2018, a gunman killed two and injured 18 in kentucky. the shooter got the gun he used from an unlocked closet in his home. this is a list of 15 other examples, killings that resulted from a weapon not being properly scored -- stored. stop saying nothing in this legislation would change anything. that is a live. it will save lives. if you don't think that is worth doing, say that. say that you think should -- as many guns should be available to as many people as possible, no restrictions. don't say that nothing in this legislation would save the lives of children and americans across the country. it is dead wrong, and we have examples of it. you have not refuted any of it! stop saying, nothing will change. that is a lie! please stop doing it. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman yields back. all in favor, say aye. opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the no's have it. the amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does mr. massey seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at your desk. >> the clerk will report the amendment. a point of order is reserved. >> amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to hr 7910. >> without objection, the amendment will be discussed as a writer. >> i offered this amendment sincerely, and i want to explain some of my motivation for offering it. we think a lot about our active military that are deployed overseas, putting their lives on the line, and pausing their personal development, their careers, in order to protect this country. too often, we don't think about their families at home, and in the case of the wife of -- wife at home who is taking the kids to the doctor, paying the bills, paying the mortgage, fixing the car, in many ways operating not just like a single mom but taking care of the military members' business affairs while he is deployed, and it occurs to me -- and this is the case -- a lot of people who enlist in the military, they start their lives early. it is not uncommon for someone under the age of 21 for someone to be married in the -- and in the service, and the single wife at home who is almost like a single mom if they have kids at that point has a tremendous burden. we should not add to her burden that she cannot defend herself and her kids when her husband is deployed. that is what raising the age to purchase a modern long rifle or shotgun is going to do. if you are under the age of 21, you cannot buy a handgun from an ffl. in the case of a military spouse whose husband is deployed, maybe she could get a shotgun or rifle, which would not be as effective, but at least it is something. what we are telling that mom at home is, you've got to buy a single shot 22. you've got to buy a shotgun whose design is 150 years old if you want to protect her family at home. you may say, the military, they have got a lot of buddies. surely there is a guy who is not the ploy to who is willing to buy a firearm -- not deployed who is willing to buy a firearm and give it to the spouse at home. that is not going to work. it's not an uncle or niece or stepchild. there is not that family relation. if somebody tries to help the single mom at home whose husband is deployed by giving her a firearm, she is guilty of gun trafficking under this bill. the buddy giving the firearm to her is guilty of gun trafficking, and what does she want to do? she wants to protect her family while her husband is deployed to protect the constitution. she deserves the same protections regardless of the fact that she started her family at age 18, 19 or 20. she should not be deprived of that right. what my bill says or my amendment, it in then's the underlying bill. the underlying bill raises the age to purchase a semi automatic long gun or shotgun from 18 to 21, but it says if you are a member of the armed forces, you are exempt from this. my amendment says, if you are a spouse of the member -- of a member of the armed forces, you are exempt. if my colleagues say, the young mom could never use a firearm to defend her family, i've got a story of an oklahoma woman who killed an intruder, called 911. she would not let the intruder into her home. her husband wasn't in the military, but in a similar situation, he had died of cancer, and the community knew it. when members of the community are deployed, it is a point of pride. there are people who would take advantage of that knowledge knowing that there is a single mom at home, like this person did in oklahoma when the husband died of cancer in the community knew it, but this mother was able to defend herself and her baby with a firearm, and we should not deprive anybody of that right. that is what my amendment does. i yield back. >> does the gentlelady insist on a point of order? >> i do not insist on a point of order. >> the gentlelady does not insist on her point of order. i recognize myself in opposition to the amendment. the point of this section of the bill is to restrict the use of semiautomatic, set to fire weapons from people aged 18 to up until 21, because it is our judgment that such people should not be able to use, for the reasons we've gone through much of today talking about, such weapons. there is a carveout in the bill for persons of either sex in the armed services because persons in the armed services are specifically trained in the use of firearms. their spouses are not. this amendment would make the spouses of persons in the military pages 18 through 21 eligible to use semiautomatic, set to fire guns. it is the judgment of the bill that such people should not be and do not fall under the category of people who get military training. their spouses do, but they don't, and therefore, this is an ill-conceived amendment, and i would urge opposition to. i yield back. who seeks recognition? >> i moved to strike the last word. mr. chairman, i believe you have shifted ground. earlier today, the basis for not allowing people ages 18 to 21 was was because they were not neurologically developed. >> will the gentleman yield? >> there is a point i want to make. i'm sure there will be time for us to engage on that question. i represent the highest concentration of active duty military in the country, and i feel particularly obligated to speak on behalf of the amendment to vindicate the second amendment of military families. there are two key points. military families don't get to choose the cities that they live in. they are told by the army, air force, navy, if you are a family that has been sent to do your duty for the country and a democrat run state or a democrat run city where they have defunded the police, created sanctuaries for illegals and created violence, you are forcing those patriotic families to be functionally helpless in conditions not of their choosing. the second key point is often times there is knowledge of scaled deployments. in my community, we have 400 service members going to fight abroad. we typically know that. word is out in the community. different organizations are supporting family members and engaging in other support. you could leave people subject to gun control and subject to crime with criminals knowing that their spouse is not home to be a part of the protection plan that family has. i think democrats are prepared to oppose this amendment to provide physical security for military families in their most vulnerable time potentially during a deployment. we ought to think carefully about the downstream consequence. i would yield to chairman nadler. >> the gentleman is entirely right. i said earlier today that 18 to 21-year-olds are not neurologically prepared for this. i still mean it. of course, that is overcome for someone in the armed services who receives intensive military training. >> how do you know that? how much training does someone need to overcome their neurological deficiencies? >> the amount the military services gives them is sufficient, but it is not the case for the spouses of such people unless they are in the military and getting the same training. >> i'm sure the chairman takes my point that the spouses have an obligation to protect, at times, their home or homestead while someone is deployed. >> i think we all are concerned, as you are concerned, and you will know that this person could get a rifle or a shotgun and be trained on that. this spouse, male or female, 21 or under, could get a rifle or shotgun. there is a means of protecting themselves. >> to reclaim my time, the challenge is, miss jackson lee, here in congress, we are choosing how military spouses ought to defend their families, and we are prescribing that. i think that is heavy-handed for people who are willing to move anywhere, go anywhere to fight for our country and defend our freedoms, and particularly for female spouses, a long gun or a rifle may present different storage challenges, different logistical challenges in the event you have an intruder. there is a reason that handguns are more typically used for home defense than rifles. i would suggest that we wouldn't want to make those decisions for any family because we wouldn't want to be held responsible for something that would go wrong. >> and the amendment allows them to have a firearm as long as it is sufficient for hunting a rabbit or squirrel. the types of firearms the spouse would be allowed to have -- i'm sorry, the bill limits it to that. the amendment opens it up to firearms that are suitable for defense of family and property. without the amendment, they are going to be limited to firearms designed to hunt squirrels and rabbits. >> i don't mean to be overly critical, but this debate highlights the fact that we have a lot of people on this committee who are not very familiar with firearms trying to make broad-based decisions about firearms that could be harmful to a lot of american families, especially military families. i yield back. >> for what purpose does mr. royce seek recognition? >> to speak on the amendment. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> i think feature. -- thank the chair. much like the debate we were having earlier with respect to having exceptions, i've got strong concerns, as already discussed, about the age in the first place, and the gentleman from kentucky was a purple erasing that with respect to draft considerations. the chairman is positing multiple theories as to why we should not permit individuals age 18 until just shy of 21 to possess a semiautomatic weapon. i would note that when i turned 18, my high school graduation gift was a semiautomatic. i still have that weapon today. i somehow managed to get through my years of 18, 19 and 20, neurologically impaired as i might have been, without harming anyone. the point here is obviously, most of my colleagues in the house, the gentleman from kentucky, myself, we oppose the age restriction on constitutional grounds, the fact that we believe irrespective of what the ninth circuit says, you are afforded rights under the constitution. in this case, we are saying, good gracious, could we at least ensure that spouses -- as the gentleman from florida said, particularly female spouses of members of the military -- are afforded the ability to had a semiotic weapon -- semiautomatic weapon to defend themselves? it is the most available and most used tool for self-defense in the country. we talked about the constitutional language, the weapons that are common. that is the common weapon today, the nine millimeter. in the past, it might've been a .45 or .38. now it is a nine millimeter or semiautomatic pistol. long guns are great. london's afford one option. if you've got a shotgun, it gives you a good blast range to defend yourself, but it is not as easily acquired. you can keep a .45 on you or near you. to restrict and 18, 19 or 20-year-old adult who is given the right to vote, all the rights and responsibilities that come with being an adult, raises serious concerns and reservations. i think the gentleman from kentucky is absolutely right to raise this issue, particularly for the spouses of members of the military, but there are multiple people you would think through, hey, this is a problem, despite being an adult and engaging in the world as an adult. i would be happy to yield to the gentleman from kentucky if you would like any time. >> i have no other -- >> mr. roy, i would like to raise one issue with you -- mr. cicilline. >> i will yield. >> i think it is important to recognize we already prohibit persons under the age of 21 from purchasing a handgun, so adults under the age of 21 would be able to purchase a shotgun or rifle for recreational shooting, and i think it is because these assault weapons have become more and more lethal. they are the weapons of choice in mass killings, and six times as many people die in mass shootings that involve these rifles. i want to be sure that the handgun prohibition, you are aware of it. that is in line -- >> i am reclaiming my time. my point was, i have the ability at 18 to have a weapon, a semi-automatic handgun, and i believe we are talking about the rights of an 18-year-old. an 18-year-old should have that right. they should have any weapon that is publicly available because they are afforded those rights. that is the point about being able to defend yourself, and any exception we can put out there is something we should pursue. >> can i have your remaining 10 seconds? >> sure. >> the point is, if you are the spouse of a military person overseas, it does not pass constitutional muster in any way to say the only gun you can have is a gun that is designed for hunting squirrels, and i urge the adoption of this amendment. >> the gentleman yields back. does anyone else seek recognition? >> mr. gomer. i do. >> for what purpose does mr. go hmert seek recognition? >> to strike the last word. i think the amendment is well reasoned and appropriate. as someone with a scholarship at texas a&m, trained in different places, but when i was at fort riley, it was a standing order. you could not wear your uniform off post because of the violence that was inflicted on service members. i came in after vietnam, but we were called baby killers and all kinds of things. people hated us for no reason. we were trying to serve our country. when i got married immediately before going to the army, and i have also been an assistant da with threats on my life, but i got my wife a pistol because she needed something to protect her when i was not around, and that was true. columbus was a wonderful city, but we were warned not to wear our uniform off post because there were people who did not like us. we never went to combat, but i was sent on temporary duty to certain places, and i wanted to know my wife would be safe with a firearm that would protect her. the comment by one of my friends on the republican side mentioned we may have people pushing through laws that don't really know the fact -- effect. i would yield to the chair. i'm curious if you could explain what centerfire in this bill means. >> the gentleman is asking a question of the chair? >> if you are willing to answer or able -- it is an interesting concept, centerfire. >> my understanding it means as opposed to centerfire with the primer. >> you've got good advisors. >> is that the way of saying he answered correctly, mr. gohmert? >> it is a little bit simplistic. the rimfire is more dangerous if you have a higher caliber by a. -- caliber. it is why you see more centerfire rounds than rimfir e. it is why it is harder to find rimfire in the bigger calibers that would protect you from someone. i know from my days as a prosecutor, the first two homicides we had, somebody shot another guy with a 25, and he got mad and killed him with a bigger gun. i had a mental note, don't use .25 automatics for self protection. i'm not sure how many democrats could outline the difference between rimfire and centerfire and the ramifications of using either. , but coming back to the amendment, we've had problems for our army, military recruiting since october of last year. people were saying, wow, the president let these guys die in afghanistan? he trusted the enemy to protect them? people have been more reluctant. recruiting became a problem last october, and if you have to tell people that this becomes law, gee, you are going to defend a country where we will not allow your -- [inaudible] we are not going to allow your spouse to have adequate protection while you are away, be it a man or woman, and by the way, we think if you are between 18 and not reach 21, we think you are mentally infirm. in texas, if you are 17, we try you as an adult, and that is just the way it is. i think it is a good amendment. >> the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does mr. raskin seek recognition? >> i move to strike the last word. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. chairman, we meet in the middle of a continued slaughter of innocent children and adults, and it did not start on may 13 with the bloodbath in buffalo where 10 people were gunned down by an 18-year-old racist mass murderer with an ar-15, jacked up on the white supremacist great replacement theory. it did not start on may 24 with the massacre of 19 fourth-graders and two teachers trying to protect them. it did not start yesterday with the bloody massacre of four people in tulsa, oklahoma. we've been demanding that our colleagues get serious about gun violence and public safety since the columbine high school massacre on april 20, 1999 when two young gun men murdered a dozen students in broad daylight. at least since then, we have been demanding serious gun safety legislation since the sandy hook massacre in newtown, connecticut in 2012 when a gunman assassinated 20 children and six adults. we've had nearly 1000 school shootings since 2012, in the last decade. 1000 of them. the police chiefs of america who are strong proponents of gun safety legislation to protect both our people and our police and to keep a sea of firearms out of the hands of criminals have been strong supporters of a ban on assault weapons since 1992, but that does not move our republican colleagues who often describe themselves as supporters of police. our gun violence rate is 22 times greater than it is in europe and 23 times the rate of firearm homicides seen in australia. gun violence now tops car accidents as the leading cause of death of children in america. mr. chairman, in the midst of this bloodbath, something extraordinary among nations on earth, we meet to consider legislation supported by the vast majority of the american people who favor a universal violent criminal background check for all firearm purchases by a remarkable 89% margin. that means nine out of 10 americans support it. similar numbers favor red flag laws. great majorities of american people favor the elements of this legislation today. they are not under the influence of the gun lobby. the people of america do nothing other than to demand us to use our common sense. mr. chairman, we are paying for the blood of children for a lie about the second amendment. the proponents of an action invite us to believe that the second amendment invites people to void the brady background check. they invite us to believe the second amendment prohibits a ban on high-capacity magazines, the kinds that have been used to engage in indiscriminate mass murders and massacres in you've all that or buffalo -- in uvalde or buffalo. no matter what we suggest to end the slaughter in our schools, movie theaters, synagogues and streets, they claim the second amendment forbids it, but this is a blatant misreading. in d.c. versus heller, the supreme court said the second amendment does not create an unlimited right to gun ownership, but rather a right to own a handgun in your home for the purposes of self-defense and a long gun for purposes of recreation and hunting are the second amendment is subject to reasonable regulation. that is completely consistent with the common sense of the vast majority of the american people. the constitution and common sense are on the same side, and to think people willing to overthrow 50 years of supreme court precedent on the constitutional right to the right to privacy in order to advance what they call a pro-life agenda that most americans reject will not even accept with the supreme court has actually said about the constitution and reasonable gun safety legislation in order to prove -- promote a pro-life agenda that the vast majority of american people support, those who are willing to rip up the constitutional precedent to promote a pro-life agenda should embrace constitutional precedent that allows us to promote a pro-life agenda that the vast majority of the american people endorse. i yield back to you. >> the gentleman yields. does anyone else seek recognition? if not, the question occurs on the amendment. all those in favor, say aye. all opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair -- >> mr. chairman? i request a recorded vote. >> a recorded vote has been requested. the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. nadler? miss lofgren? >> no. >> miss jackson lee? mr. cohen? >> no. >> mr. johnson of georgia? >> no. >> mr. deutch? >> no. >> miss bass? >> no. >> mr. jeffries? mr. cicilline? >> no. >> mr. swalwell? >> no. >> mr. liu? >> no. >> mr. raskin? >> no. >> miss jayapal? >> no. >> miss demings? >> no. >> mr. correa? miss scanlon? >> no. >> miss garcia? >> no. >> mr. neguse? >> no. >> miss mcbeth? -- mcbath? >> no. >> mr. stanton? >> no. >> miss dean? >> no. >> miss escobar? >> no. >> mr. jones? >> no. >> miss ross? >> no. >> miss bush? mr. jordan? >> yes. >> mr. shaaban? >> aye. >> mr. gohmert? >> aye. >> mr. issa? >> aye. >> mr. buck? >> aye. >> mr. gates? >> aye. >> mr. johnson of louisiana? >> aye. >> mr. biggs? >> aye. >> mr. mcclintock? >> aye. >> mr. steube? >> yes. >> mr. tiffany? >> aye. >> mr. massey? >> aye. >> mr. roy? >> aye. >> mr. bishop? >> aye. >> ms. sparks? mr. fitzgerald? >> aye. >> mr. bentz? >> aye. >> mr. owens? >> aye. >> mr. jeffries, you were not recorded. >> jeffries votes no. >> how was correa recorded? >> you were not recorded. >> correa votes no. >> how was mr. nadler recorded? >> mr. nadler is not recorded. >> no. >> miss jackson lee? >> am i recorded? >> you are not recorded. >> i vote no. >> miss jackson lee votes no. >> the clerk will report. >> mr. chairman, 19 ayes, 24 nos. >> the amendment is not agreed to. are there any further amendments? for what purpose does mr. gates rise? the clerk will report the amendment. >> amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to hr 7910 offered by mr. gaetz. >> without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. the gentleman is recognized to speak on his amendment. >> i believe one of the greatest threats to the second amendment, gun owners, public safety right now, the negotiations going on in the united states senate to potentially adopt red flag laws. i want members of the judiciary committee to be on the record and to be understood as to whether or not we believe it is a proper function of the united states government to try to coerce or entice or control states to adopt red flag laws. i am unequivocally against red flag laws. they deprive amendments of their second amendment rights. they deprive americans of their fifth amendment rights to due process. many states have laws beyond their red flag laws where someone is not in a position to appropriately own a firearm. that can be dealt with. as there is this seemingly reflexive desire to adopt red flag laws, including in florida, i would suggest that this committee take a position against them. in the sunshine state, nearly 6000 people have been subject to orders as a result of red flag laws. i do not view that as a success. i view that as something that would cause grave, grave concern. increasingly, we see that these red flag laws have been used in contentious divorces where you have one person trying to deprive another person of their safety and security and liberty and second amendment rights in order to gain leverage in a marital dispute, and i find that challenging. our second amendment rights should not be subject to that kind of deprivation and review by a court in an adversarial proceeding, an adversarial proceeding that justice would require, and i would yield to the gentleman from kentucky. >> red flag laws are bad. they are not just harmful. they are unnecessary. in all 50 states, there are already laws on the books. in florida, it is the baker act. in california, it is 5150. it allows someone to be committed to a mental institution or have their firearms taken away, but the difference between those existing laws and the new laws is the existing laws have due process. you are entitled to an attorney. you will know when the hearing is happening. if you cannot afford an attorney, they will give you an attorney, and there is a mental health expert required to be involved. this is absent of any of the red flag laws. they don't provide you with a lawyer if you can't afford one, so many people have to submit to having their guns taken away without due process. they presume you are guilty. under the new red flag laws, if you have the money, if you have the resources, you might be able to fight to keep your arms. red flag laws prevent people from seeking help. if you get red flagged, they do not provide you with mental health. in the 50 states that have laws dealing with involuntary commitment, they provide you with mental help. with red flag laws, they era take the person who they believe will be a danger and provide no help whatsoever, and how do you know that you have taken all of their weapons or that they couldn't get more? people knowing this will not seek mental help. if they've got an issue, they think that stigma will cause them to lose their rights. it is worse than having a red flag law. i yield back to the gentleman from florida. >> i yield to the gentleman from ohio. >> does the gentlelady insist on a point of order? >> i do not insist on a point of order. >> i will recognize myself in opposition to the amendment. this amendment is not right because it says that this congress disfavors the enactment of red flag laws, and yet although this committee has reported out a red flag bill to the floor, the congress, the house has not yet voted on it, and the house will probably vote on it next week, at which point this amendment would be right. i oppose this amendment at the time. >> mr. chairman, i believe the amendment says in the states, that congress would disfavor the enactment of laws known as red flag laws in the states where they currently exist. does that alter the chairman's view? >> i would oppose that. it is not up to congress. >> i believe the chairman has a different view of that when it comes to voting rights. >> reclaiming lifetime. protecting constitutional rights is a federal concern. >> so is the second amendment and due process. >> yes, they are. >> who else seeks recognition? for what purpose does mr. bishop seek recognition? >> i will speak on the amendment. it is interesting. i learned a good bit in the scramble to get ready for this hearing, last-minute, called in recess, and then mr. tiffany had amendment earlier today. i don't know if most americans realize, but in the existing law, it is unlawful for any person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental -- mental institution to possess a weapon. as has been said, and i think it is not generally understood, these baker laws that exist -- i think there is a general term that exists for them in state after state -- if you get a good look at the history of gun control, this has been a subject that has been debated for many years, and those things that are evidently appropriate have long since been dealt with. the difference between those laws that have been considered and undertaken over the course of years in the united states before and red flag laws is the words "has been adjudicated that is the nature of the process. these are fundamental constitutional rights we are talking about. we have some differences of opinion about that. some don't know that heller recognized a fundamental constitutional right to individuals under the second amendment, but you really cannot justify stripping someone of a fundamental constitutional right without giving them due process. due process has a meaning of its own. the amount a process that is due has always been commensurate with the nature of the right. if we are talking about stripping someone of a fundamental right, you cannot make a very good case for skipping some limited amount of process. the adjudication of a judge of an affidavit or two, particularly by a witness who may be loaded with bias for the reasons mr. gaetz articulated, and then their rights are gone. the one that was stuck in >> it is the kind of thing that can renew itself. it can renew indefinitely. in masquerades as a temporary one which should not be done in any event. i am waiting to see what the arguments are of those who advocate for this, but i think it is almost impossible to justify and our law to the state recognizes this. that is why it appears as it does. that people are entitled to due process. i yield to the gentleman from florida. >> in many cases the red flag would not be the most effective means of dealing with somebody who is intent on committing one of these terrible atrocities. at parkland, you had a neighbor witnessed the shooter practice in the background. the neighbor called the fbi and told them. you had probable cause to engage in law enforcement activity to stop violence. instead of fixing that, we are instead trying to go into this ticket for tap -- tit for tat. i think you are looking at something here that is a high likelihood of depriving rights, very low likelihood of being the effective mechanism to stop violence. >> another thought before my time expires. the longer i am here that worries me more is the use of power by government officials. there is a lot more that can be said about that. i yield back. >> the gentleman leads back. >> 19 states including the state of florida has a form of red flag laws. president biden and president trump both support these laws following the deadly shootings in el paso, dayton and ohio. president trump says we must make sure they do not have access to firearms. if they do those firearms can be taken through rapid due process. that is why i've called for red flag laws, also known as extremist protection orders. and quote. this legislation i have put forth i have lived in the language directly from the language of senator lindsey graham and senator richard blumenthal. this is nothing different about this legislation. they first introduced it in 2018. it has already been agreed upon by our colleagues here in this committee and it will be voted on in the house and it will pass. republicans as well as democrats have deemed that this federal extremist protection order are vitally necessary to preventing unnecessary carnage, so there is due process that is established in this legislation and i am not going to let you sit here and say it is not. law enforcement, family and members will file a petition requesting federal court issues these production orders. prohibiting individuals that are considered a threat to themselves or others from having access to purchasing or possessing firearms. if this legislation was an important, why did the state of florida and other 18 states enacted? they recognize it is effective. they recognize it is effective legislation and saves lives. you can sit here and talk about no due process. it is not the truth. this legislation has shown in many instances and other research substantiates that any state and i heard something contradictory earlier. states that have federal extremist protection orders have massive reductions in fatal shooting's and burgers. this legislation works. we have seen it over and over again. we have seen this happen exactly -- definitely by the governor of florida. he established this right after parkland. >> will the gentlewoman yield? >> no, i will not. i will yield to jamie raskin from maryland. >> thank you for your leadership and your passion. when we point out there are more guns than people in america, our friends say the problem is not guns, it is the people, despite the fact that we have rate of gun homicide 20 times higher than european countries. they say it is the people. the states that legislate to permit police officers to petition a state court to order the temporary removal of firearms when somebody has proven to be a danger to other people or themselves. you think our friends would say that some good focus. but of course they oppose that because the nra opposes all forms of gun legislation. they are categorically opposed to anything we can do to try to lift this terror across the country. they claim it due process, but the police and family members cannot seize the guns. you have to go to court. the court hears the whole case and decides whether to temporarily remove them. this outrageous amendment demonstrates the frivolity of their whole approach to this. they are not going to do anything to get rid of assault weapons. and they will not do anything that allows the states to pass laws that actually try to target people who have proven themselves to be a danger to other people. i thank you for your leadership and i yield back to you. >> the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman is recognize. >> the language in the gentleman's amendment is accurate. red flag laws triple on an individual's due process and second amendment rights. that is exactly what these laws do. all you have to do is look at the build the democrats passed last october. it defines who can file a petition to take away another individuals second amendment liberty. dating partner of the respondent. think about that. the ex-boyfriend goes to court, says she crazy and she and i have a gun. there is a hearing within 24 hours. what kind of investigation can happen that quick? he gets to remain confidential. he just sign something saying she is crazy and should not have a firearm. there is a hearing within 24 hours and she does not get to show up. to defend herself. the ex-boyfriend is out to get her. and she cannot have a firearm for two weeks. what if the scenario is even worse? what if he is intent on doing her harm and he knows he took away her ability to defend yourself? that is what this bill would do. no due process and for her to get it back, she have to go to court and the evidence standard is lower. that is why these things are so dangerous. this is going to be abused. probably already is in the states who have done it. we all want to keep guns out of the hands of bad guys and people with mental illness but this is not going to do that. mr. bishop brought up a great point. we have to be careful about the awesome power of government to go after people. we talked about this a lot. we had an fbi whistleblower come forward and talk to us about what happened in the school board scenario where they investigated a mother because she was in the group moms for liberty and had a gun. this is a scary direction where the democrats want to go. i hope we can send a message to the united states senate that this is not the way to go. you do not want a law that will deprive people of due process and take away their second amendment liberties. this is a good amendment and i hope we can adopt it. i yield to the gentleman from kentucky. >> police do not want that world. there are sheriff's already who are refusing to implement these red flag laws because they put unnecessarily so somebody can prove a point or get back at a domestic partner, they put police and the dangerous situation where they have to wake up somebody unannounced that they know was armed who has no idea why somebody is coming through their door. why somebody is busting the door down. why somebody is dragging them out and trying to take away their firearm. the results are predictable and they have happened. you will have people who die in the execution of these warrants. the type of warrants that would make king george blushed. -- blush. a lot of the water has already gone over the dam hearing congress. that will be the case until november when the people get a chance to speak in the meantime it is up to the senate and the senators they are out of touch. out of touch with their constituents but also out of touch with the constitution. i yield back. >> red flag laws triple on an individual second amendment rights. i yield back. >> the gentleman's time is expired. >> let me announce that this will be well known. in wisconsin, the racine police department told residents to stay away from graceland cemetery due to multiple shots fired and multiple people injured. multiple people were shot during a funeral. there are victims but unknown how many at this time according to police. as we sit here, i am not representing the extent of the details. but as we sit here, there are multiple shots fired near racine , wisconsin. i am not representing the gun type, the facts are still unfolding. my colleagues are here arguing about saving lives. i do not take a back seat to the privileges of the constitution and how valuable they are. in my skin, i have had much of that denied over history. i was denied due process. i was considered property in terms of ancestors. formerly enslaved africans. i know what the history speaks about denying rights. but to equate red flag laws that were supported by senator lindsey graham in 2018 and bat have been suggested that they would be supported by republican senators and 2022 and to compound the injury with the repetitive statement that we are rushing ahead, we are doing things too fast. we are bullying. while, none of that talk takes guns out of a disturbed person's hands. the perpetrator in buffalo was disturbed with the mental disease of white supremacy. nobody knows whether or not that attitude when he equate to a red flag, but certainly he was filled with evil and hatred. the perpetrator share in uvalde had mountains of social media of murdering women and sexually abusing them. a disturbed 18-year-old. who knows how much more? if there had been a waiting period, he might not have been able to do this dastardly deed. maybe the grandmother could have raised the issue with police. this provision in this bill on the red flag provides due process. it indicates you can be in court within 72 hours. it indicates you can still come to court. you have an opportunity for notice and to be heard. you can be represented by counsel or if you do not have the ability to do so would you will have a court appointed counsel. this is not a fishing expedition. this is something the court will determine. this is not around up or a lesser wink of people. -- this is not around up or a lassoing of people. or students to be killed because guns are not stored. they are not going to educate the american people about storage or trafficking. or munitions. magazines. and the idea of the gun age being too low. these red flag laws can save lives. and it is seen -- obscene. one mass shooting after another. i for one will not accept it. let us pass this bill to protect our children. i yield back. red flag the gentlewoman yields back. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> ed is not my rules that allows the scrap of pipe proceeding. -- crap of a proceeding. when you give us 48 hours notice. now we are availing ourselves of this technology. perhaps the committee is voting at night in their pajamas. you want to accuse me of sleeping because i do not have my camera on? give me a break. this is a pretext. democrats come in here saying we do not want to take your guns and then they say we want to take your guns. we are just going to do some soft changes to the laws. but then they admit what their goal is. to get rid of semiautomatic weapons and disarmed the american people. that is the goal. it is a pretext, all of this. that is the reality. mr. gates offered a recognition of what the red flag is all about. if you have a real issue was somebody being a danger to society, you can go down that road. you can in texas. go down that road and deprive them of liberty. within 72 hours you have a follow-up hearing. let's talk about if your going to deprive liberty. we are going to say we are going to, you. --, you. the reality is let us have that conversation if you want to have that conversation. to sit here and say we do not know for sure that the red flag laws are effective or not. i have read studies by lots of organizations. demonstrating that very much effectiveness. there are real questions about how they are implemented. my friends on the other side of the break aisle are critical of offering this. i think it is a deprivation of rights. my view on this is pretty simple. every member of the other side of the aisle made perfectly clear what the goal is. it is to disarm citizens. that is the actual objective. when we are talking about red flag laws, when we are talking about the size of the magazine, whether or not you have weapons that are locked up, that is the objective. i yield to the gentleman from florida. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. we heard from that gentle lady from texas about the horrors of slavery and racism. i do wonder whether or not there would be a racist application of some of these red flag laws. i do not know whether we study whether or not they would be granted in cases where you have different ethnicities or backgrounds. the gentlelady was actually make an argument not in favor of red flag laws. given the propensity of them to be used in a rush to leave misaligned way. -- racially misaligned way. he knows full well it is not an adversarial hearing. it is like applauding somebody for scoring an uncontested layup. it is the due process version of that. our whole contest due process relies on an adversarial process and that is one of the problems of this red flag. i see our time has expired. >> is mr. raskin seeking recognition? >> i was going to ask my friend a question. i moved to strike the last word. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> this is a critical debate we are having right now because i understood my colleagues to be saying they could not support legislation against high-capacity magazines. these magazines were used both in buffalo and give all day to dramatically increase the scope of the carnage. a number of states including my state have said you do not need high-capacity magazines for hunting. you do not need them to defend your home. you need them only if you want to use a weapon as a killing machine. i do not know whether any of our colleagues want to suggest some perfectly lawful way that somebody can use high-capacity magazines that would justify the mass murders in buffalo getting a hold of them. they say they oppose any limits on that because that would violate the second amendment. even though supreme court was perfectly clear in the heller decision that the second amendment protects the right to have rifles for hunting and recreation. i concede that. i embrace that. that is fine. it protects the right of people to use weapons for self-defense in the home the supreme court says. but it does not protect your right to have machine guns or tanks or nuclear weapons or semi-out of -- semi automatic weapons of war. that common sense understanding which is supported by 90% of americans, is perfectly consistent with what the supreme court said in the heller decision, which is you have a right to hunt, but you do not have a right to carry weapons of war and to public schools. you do not have a right to access that without a background check so we are fighting for a universal violent criminal background check. you are confusing people by saying that somehow any form of gun safety regulation violates the second amendment. that is nonsense. i want to get back to the red flag laws. they want weapons of war to be purchased by 18-year-olds. which is another notion rejected by the vast majority of the american people. but they say you have to leave the guns alone. you have to go after the people. and they talk about evil people and so on. the states say if a person is proving to be in imminent danger , you go to a court and you tell a judge there was a danger. you can temporarily seize those weapons and the person can get into court 72 hours later and prove they are not a danger. but our colleagues say no to back. in other words, they want to make it impossible for us to pass any legislation that would advance public safety. this is a radical distraction for what needs to be done to save america from the nightmare of these massacres that are continuing right through these hearings. it is a bloodbath. i am ashamed to be a part of the hearing where colleagues get up and talk about anything but what we can do to stop it. we have to get rid of the hypostatic desk capacity magazines. -- high-capacity magazines. they want to continue to allow 18-year-olds to go out and buy an ar-15. that is not a serious approach to public safety and you are not understanding serious understanding of what the supreme court says about the second amendment. i wish you would step to try to deceive people about what the amendment says. let's do out tutorial on the heller decision. >> the gentleman's time is expired. >> thank you mr. chairman. i appreciate the visceral response of the last speaker. it was interesting to hear his level of vegetation. i am looking at the red flag law that was passed last october. there are multiple conflicting issues with regard to due process. but what i find interesting is this x partake order. that is always a very dicey piece of evidence for those of us who actually try cases. that is a very dicey issue and here you are allowing an order. if the petitioner makes in a bowel -- makes a statement that the respondent opposes -- poses a risk of imminent injury. but what is that based on? either actual knowledge or another individual. if the petitioner believes somebody else is credible. so you have an order issued on hearsay. by somebody -- this is not like doing a search warrant which would be done on a reliable informant by an officer. this is by john doe on the street who ran into somebody at the bar who was telling him about so and so. that is the kind of due process that is not due or process. i yield to representative gaetz. >> let the message be astonishingly clear. if you back red flag laws as some response to some emotion that you have, you betray your voters, who are a traitor to the constitution, the second amendment, the fifth amendment, you do nothing to make mass shootings less likely and you put a target on the back of your constituents. to be subject to bizarre proceedings that you would not see in any other type of circumstance i have an profound impact on your rights. and these will be abuse. they are being abused. how long until the conversations about kicking senator hawley off of aircraft turn into conversations about taking his guns away? this is about power. what the democrats want this to ensure the government has the power to take your guns away without giving you due process. and shame on any republican in the senate that would pave the way to that type of deprivation to our liberty. i yield back. >> earlier today, mr. jones said you will not stop us from passing this. if the filibuster obstructs us, we will abolish it. we will not rest until we have taken weapons of war from our communities. that if the term democrats have concocted. it speaks to their desire to reject the core right entailed in the second amendment. if they abuse all those things, but they abuse this? will they use a red flag law and a favorable official in a jurisdiction? would they use those people to go attack their political opponents gun rights? i just do not understand why once they have told you who they are, you have to know the context in which you are operating. that is the context. in that situation, you are being asked to say we will cut due process for this fundamental right. i do not think you can do it. will the gentleman yield? >> the gentleman is recognized. >> this is a radical position being offered. they claim that we should support ensuring that people who are in imminent danger to themselves and others, have a constitutional right to access a firearm and to deny them that right what quote trip along their due process and second amendment right. you know who did not have due process? you know who did not have the constitutional right to life respected? the kids at parkland, sandy hook, you've all day, -- uvalde. no, i will not yield. do not ask again. they ensure that people who are a grave danger to themselves do not have access to a firearm. the former republican president said we must make sure that those who pose a great risk to public safety do not have access to firearms and if they do so those firearms can be taken through rapid due process. the former republican president, the bill introduced by senator lindsey graham. no matter how dangerous you are, you should have unfettered access to a firearm because the second amendment during tease it. that is nonsense. protection orders are modeled after domestic violence orders. they have due process. that is the due process which exists. it is available in all the states they have these laws. they have been upheld by courts when challenged. the idea that there is no due process is below me. -- baloney. it is not the permanent removal of a firearm. it is the temporary removal so that person does not kill others or themselves. many examples where the lives of individuals and others have been saved by this temporary intervention. it is shocking that our republican colleagues have been clamoring about due process of would-be killers and they never mentioned the deprivation of due process of victims of gun violence. the deprivation families experience when people are slaughtered by a gun. have not heard one word about the constitutional right to remain alive. and this notion that you cannot take away a gun from a seriously dangerous person even temporarily as shocking. it is radical. it is a departure from most republicans. 90% of the american people support this legislation. 75% of gun owners and the former president supports it. the notion that somebody can make a false claim. people are required to testify under oath. there are penalties if you like and most states make it illegal to file false petitions. what this really is is gun manufacturers and gun salesman who say no matter what anyone in america should have access to as many guns as they want no matter who they slaughter because gun sales promote revenue. and at the gun manufacturers do not want any limitations on it. it is disgraceful to hear people on this committee to argue that somebody who was seriously mentally ill and is a danger to others that they have a constitutional right and it will trip along the rights. that that that seriously mentally ill person cannot buy a gun and smaller -- smaller people. -- slaughter people. >> if i could summarize what we are doing here today. this is the last amendment to a series of six bills. republicans have done triage trying to save the constitution in the face of six bills that exhibit disregard for the constitution and disregard for the safety of american citizens. republicans tried to defend due process. democrats said no thanks. republicans tried to establish what the supreme court has established that this is an individual right to keep and bear arms. democrats do not even want people who need guns to have them. they do not want guns anywhere. they would like to repeal the second amendment. we tried to protect the rights of domestic violence victims. not just the right to defend themselves but the right not to be prosecuted for gun trafficking. we tried to protect the rights of military families in an amendment. we have tried to protect draft age adults. we have heard them be insulted here, that there brains are not fully developed. some here have decided there brains are not fully formed but they decided they can go fight for us. what is the one thing we have not done? we have not talked about what would fix this problem. the depraved individuals -- by the way we are having this hearing as a knee-jerk reaction to shootings that have recently happened, but what is going through these depraved individuals minds and is this going to change whether they carried this out or not? a lot of them steal their guns. they do not care if they die. they have some distorted image of what would make them famous. if they could get a body count on the soft target. they even pick elementary schools. we need to deprive them of that. they are copycats. they see this in the news. how do you keep them from that? they should be met with certain death if they target our children. instead of advertising our children a soft targets come out for in that institution can carry a firearm to protect the kids. sane adults should be able to protect kids from insane individuals. which of these two signs do you think should the shooter will choose? the data is in. every school that displays the sign none of them have ever had a shooting. here we are 32 years later since the first knee-jerk reaction, the 1990 gun free zone act, it has not prevented a single school shooting ever and it has caused the loss of life of young students and teachers. i will yield to my friend from florida. >> can we address rapid due process. when we call for it at the border, you tell us it cannot happen at all. but then you want rapid due process to take guns away from americans. i do not think the american people understood the bargain they were getting when they voted for democrats. i yield back. thank you, mr. chairman. my colleagues on the others talk about one of the ways to fight gun violence is to take care of the mental health issues of the gunmen who kill americans. we can take care of their mental health issues and we can arm our teachers. that seems to be their only solution. but when we talk about common sense, they do not want to fund it nor do they want to protect our children from people, particularly particularly 18-year-olds who are exhibiting the kind of conduct that warrant an intervention in advance before they do something to kill our students. so i do not understand, that is a contradiction. what we are getting today is a lot of spurious arguments and amendments to try to defeat this common sense legislation offered so as to score points with wayne lapeer, the executive director of the nra. after all back in 2014, we note the nra spent 103 million dollars in contributions to politicians who protect and preserve its ability to dictate policy. in 2015, almost $100 million. i do not know what the figures are for 2017-2020. i do know the attorney general for new york filed a civil lawsuit against the nra and wayne lapeer, wearing $4000 suits. i admired the one he he had on in houston the other day. he chartered yachts and burns the whole family, cruises to the bahamas. just spending whatever money comes into his grasp. he was sued by the attorney general and had to declare bankruptcy. she is watching and he is approving of the performance of my friends on the other side of the break i own. i think the american people see through it. they want common sense gun reform and they want it now. i am going to yield to my colleague from georgia. who has been trying to get a red flag law pestered this congress. >> thank you so much. i am so disappointed in my republican colleagues as they spew fear and hypothetical scenarios of ambushes in the dead of night. to my colleague in florida, i resent your threats of one being a traitor and supporting red flag laws. let's just talk facts right now. 90% of the american public supports red flag laws. between 1990 nine and 2021 at least 16,000 extremist protection petitions were filed. the majority have been filed since the parkland sheeting. -- sheeting. -- shooting. i am not going to talk anymore statistics. as a human being, as a mother, i am just talking for real. you walk a day in my shoes and you talk to the hundreds of family members and law enforcement and survivors who knew in advance their loved one swearing crisis and there was nothing they could do. i am out of time. >> the gentlelady yields bad. -- back. >> i am in support of the amendment. this has been difficult to listen to. i wanted to be there in person but they airline was not cooperative. the laws that keep us from being liable from the things we say in hearings. when we are accused of wanting dangerous people to have guns, we cannot sue for slander. so many ridiculous things are so slanderous but you are protected because we are in a hearing. but it is outrageous. misrepresenting what is said. as far as the red flag laws, i remember them saying everybody is in favor of red flag laws. a lot of people bought it because it was not explained. we were begging the obama administration to tell us what gets somebody put on the no-fly list, like a three-star general in my district was. they could not explain it. we could not find out how you got on the no-fly list or how you got off. but these are some of the same people who are saying you have nothing to worry about with red flag. trust us, it was due process when you got put on the no-fly list and now you cannot get off. you cannot have a hearing. look, as a judge, i have hearings and if somebody knows somebody else is dangerous, i had those hearings and i ordered in most cases when the evidence was there, yes, this person is dangerous. this person is a threat to themselves and to others. you can do that. i have done it. so that they would not have a firearm. that can be done right now in texas. i know because i was a judge. i have listened to all the slander that i care to listen to. it is outrageous what we have listened to and i need more time because democrats keep interrupting. this is my time. this should not pass until we have bills that we can review. i yield the remainder of my time to my friend from ohio. >> the other side has talked about rapid due process. what is it? it is a hearing where the person is going to lose their second amendment right is not allowed to be present at. the petitioner can be there but the person who loses their rights cannot be there. rapid due process is going to lead to the suspension of people's rights. the gentleman from rhode island said do not worry. it is just temporary. your rights are there some of the time i guess is what they think the constitution says. that is not how it works. this is a fundamental liberty, the second amendment. and they say do not worry, you can get it back after we implement rapid due process. it is not due process by definition. the gentleman from florida is right. this is an assault on the fifth amendment and the second amendment. but democrats say it is temporary. we promise we will not go further even though they said it is just a start. that is what is so frightening. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentleman is recognized. >> correct me if i am wrong. i thought i heard mr. massey express a concern that purchases contribute to the gun violence. i would just ask have you read the legislation? this is legislation that would ban those purchases. >> actually, the legislation makes domestic violence done subject to prosecution for gun trafficking. >> nowhere in the legislation does it say that. >> you voted against an amendment that would have prevented it. >> can you point to the provision? >> it everybody unless they are a family member in order to transfer a firearm. >> this legislation would ban purchases of the kind you claim to be concerned. this goes to the heart of the matter which is that you guys are trying to avoid taking any responsibility whatsoever for the role that your inaction and your opposition to what we are trying to do today has played in continuing the status quo. no, no. i also want to address another issue. i will not allow my colleagues to claim that gun violence is a state or local issue. our gun laws are only as strong as our weakest states laws. the people in my home state of new york paid the lethal price for the reckless policies of gop states across the country. 76% of traced guns across state lines came from states without background checks. guns smuggled up from the south. in new york city 90% of guns recovered from a crime scene came from out of state. gun violence does not respect borders. that means children shot and killed walking around their neighborhoods. i told you about the fear i felt as an 11-year-old when i learned about the columbine shooting miles away. just imagine the fear and pain of the 11-year-old killed in new york city last month. the friend has been taken from them all because congress would not do a thing about the flood of guns in new york city. this tale is all too familiar in new york. in january and 11 month old baby was struck by a stray bullet. kids across new york city are being killed and i am not going to stand for that. we will not fail the children of new york city. we will not fail the 29 new yorkers endured when somebody fired a handgun 33 times in a subway car. we will not fail them. we have a moral duty not to fail them. i would like to yield to my as i was saying before and i'm going to say this ruefully. i'm talking not as a legislator but as a gun violence survivor who spends a lot of time and days and hours and months and weeks, talking to others like myself, talking to other individuals across the country who recognize their loved ones were in crisis, who recognize that loved ones needed help, who recognized their loved ones had access to firearms and ammunition and had no recourse, no legal recourse whatsoever to protect their loved ones from themselves or them doing auto we harm to others in their community. walk a day in my shoes would have to sit down and listen to the stories over again, from law enforcement who said at their hands are tied. blocked a day in my shoes, you can spew all of the hypotheticals you want, but until you live those experiences, don't you dare try to say that red flag does not work. the statistics, the data is there to substantiate the need for these laws to save as many lives as we can. block a day in my shoes, do you -- walk a day in my shoes, don't you dare sit here and hypothetically scare people with scenarios and fear mongering. don't you dare. the american people deserve far better than this and they deserve to have their lives cared for. what you seem to know nothing about. >> gentlemen, it is expired. your recognized. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chair. i was hoping we would focus on something we can do to help the kids in our school. something we could do right now, something that would not take years of debate, something that would actually help. there has been a number of amendments that have been suggested. i turn my attention to those. let me walk down through why it is being suggested by my democratic colleagues, why it won't immediately help. the first 18 to 21 constitutionally, ghost guns, suspect storage prohibiting access, constitutionally suspect. bump stocks, constitutionally suspect. the large magazine minimization of those without consequence from a practical standpoint. the gun trafficking is flood. each one one of these will not help. they will be challenged and nothing is going to happen for our kids. what disturbs me the most about what i have seen today is the failure of my democratic colleagues to reach out to republicans who have a list of hills they should have -- ills that you should have worked into what we working today. richard hudson stop to act, which would secure every school to protect our kids the hr 151, and ics act, hr 194, the report on and -- hr 1604 stops purchases, prosecuting gun crime . hr 1567. hr 1229. the safety act. not a peep about these. if there is any indication about what this truly is which is a political gesture at best and a bad set commentary on an inability to get things done, is a really bad commentary, the failure to incorporate that which republicans in good faith have suggested bills that already exist. i want to go back to the list of amendments. there were three, the retired officers, the rso and the school safety. we have done something right now there could be any number of things that would allow us to go into our schools and make them safe. right now, not what is being challenged in course -- courses why our kids suffer. i've never heard so much with so little accomplished in my life. are yield. -- are yield. -- i yield to the gentleman from texas. >> i did not realize, he was taking time earlier. let me mentioned 16% of voters, republican and democrat leave -- believe that preventing properly trained teachers from carrying a firearm makes schools more dangerous yet you would not even let us get close to passing that. i would like to yield my time. >> i will not take so much time but this has been interesting. i don't know if there is an amount of self awareness or arrogance, my friends from new york was blaming the rest of the country for what is happening to new york. what happened in new york is because of policies. we see people run every single day without protection in every single week we have 50 to 60 people shot, nothing makes sense. i see this remarkable emotion from the other side about what is happening, which we should. it happens every single week in like people's hoods. they cannot protect themselves and now we want to take this process and failed policy and let the rest of the country deal with this misery. misery should never be a political strategy. what i am seeing right now ladies urban communities is nothing but misery so people are -- now in these urban communities is nothing but misery. give everybody the rights like we've been giving our constitution to protect themselves. give people the right, teach them how to use their arm, and you will not have any issues. this is something we need to change. we cannot wait till 2023 to give people the basic constitutional rights to protect themselves. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. >> mr. chairman. i have to strike the last word. thanks mr. chairman. just a few final random thoughts. i am glad we are here. that we have the courage to make sure we bring this bill to the floor. that we get through this as much as despicable as it has been. i just want to remember what the second amendment says. because it has been awfully idolized in the strange set of ways from our colleagues on the others of the aisle. the second amendment reads, a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. do you think the founding fathers were picturing ar style weapons, glock, not to mention the fact that this has to do with the rail regulated militia -- well regulated militia? this was a different time, they would be ashamed of the arguments they heard today. some of the words that offended me and i wonder how parents in this room who have struggled and suffered from gun violence felt each time folks on the others' line of the aisle said, oh, the democrats, it's just a need jerk reaction -- knee-jerk reaction. after columbine, knee jerk? 23 years after columbine, hundreds of thousands of students, terrorized, terrified, thousands wounded or killed. i wonder how this sounds to a parent who was lost a child. i honor that you are here today and your son ethan has been here. the entire time, witness to this. and i hope, and i know how proud he is of you and your colleague and the work you are doing to bring the truth to the american people. the other thing that strikes me about this conversation is how glib the folks on the others of the aisle are about the constitution, the second amendment,, the fifth amendment due process, do notice what is missing from their conversation for these many hours? as any recognition of the slaughter in this country and our responsibility to do something about it. why were you elected to office? why did you seek this position? if it wasn't to save lives, to lift up those less fortunate? to shield our children from the terrorizing of those crazy posters. and must be fun to walk into schools that have those warnings up. think of the children, in u valde. who walked out of that classroom. think of what they saw and will never be able to a race from their minds -- erased from their minds. i invite my colleagues to visit the work of 97% an organization that collects data from gun owners bipartisan folks who own guns do not own guns, democrats, independents, republicans, as i said earlier today you are out of touch. you are. out of touch with the american people the american people are offended by our failure to act and they are offended by your absence of showing any compassion for the loss of life. eight makes me wonder, do you have children -- it makes me wonder do you have grandchildren, children? do you worry that the next phone call could be that something happened to them? we are at a crossroads. we have been here before but we are at a crossroads yet again. kind of like robert frost, i hope we finally take the one less traveled ride and act. act to save lives from this public health crisis of our own making. i ask the senate, unlike my colleague who tried to threaten the senate, i asked the senate please stop sitting on your hands. please stop hiding behind the filibuster. please have the courage to save lives. i end by saying thank you, mr. chairman. when we started the majority four years ago, what was the first hearing you had? gun violence. after two decades of nobody wanting to have a hearing on it. i think you, mr. chairman. we are going to get this done, with or without our republican colleagues help. i yield back. >> for what purpose does must escobar seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. chairman. here we are over seven hours into the debate over our efforts ongoing violent prevention, -- gun violence pretty -- gun violence prevention. on how to keep american schoolchildren, hospital employees safe. how to keep our citizens alive in the face of horrific on violence? so, what are my bro republican colleagues ideas? i will give you two ideas, their amendments have included an attempt to got our efforts to raise the ownership age from 18 to 21 for ownership of some of the deadliest weapons, a bill, allow that would have prevented the carnage in uvalde, an another amendment to prevent us from having red flag laws altogether, that is the current amendment we are debating. in fact, they have used this entire days debate to try to expand access to guns and to prevent the common sense solution that americans are demanding of us. yes, they are standing in the way to let us do our job. so that we can deliver to the american people what they are demanding of us. fellow americans, here are the facts. there is one political party in the america standing up to the victims of gun violence, there is one political party in america voting for commonsense solutions that could prevent some of the carnage we have suffered from. there is only one political party in america that wants to protect law enforcement from weapons that leave them outgunned. that is the democratic party. there is one political party lay america standing -- in the -- in the america standing in the way of keeping our children safe, that is the american party -- report -- tameka party -- democratic party. it is time for americans to ask themselves one enough is finally enough. they need to ask themselves, if they are finally outraged enough to hold those who stand in the way of their safety accountable. believe what they do, not what they say. remember, they care more about feeding the extremism that is radicalizing our country than they do about saving lives. it will not stop until they try to arm every teacher, every nurse, every doctor, every grocery store worker. the absurdity of their extremism is deadly. mr. chairman, i am ready to take action once again. we will see who votes in favor of safety and who does not. take note, america. i yield back. >> gentlelady yields back. the question occurs on the amendment, the nature set on the amendment. all in favor say aye. opposed, no. according to those in question -- >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> nope. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> yes. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> yes. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> mr. chair how my did -- how will my recorded? i vote no. >> no. >> no. >> are there any other members who have not been recorded who wish to be recorded? >> mr. chairman there are 18 ayes and 24 nos. >> mr. chairman, into the records which i would like to list very quickly. the millions of americans were supporting the protect our kids act include the national education association and american medical association. the national alliance of specialized instructional support, the organization of american fedor is a -- fedor is asian of teachers. they support the legislation on the element of the bills that are in the legislation with unanimous consent, to submit in the record. i would like to submit in the record a number of ar styled rifles that were produced in the millions post 2004. and millions more were produced at that time after the expiration. the consent of the number of nasa shooters, under -- nasa shooters, -- nasa shooters -- mass shooters. consent for an excerpt of the case indicating the lack of prohibition on limitations on gun use. then, i have consent to show the children and others that died because of the lack of storage, along to protect -- a lot to protect children -- a law to protect children under three years old. finally pages and pages of americans who have died in mass shootings, including those who have died in buffalo, from and lante, el paso and of course -- in atlanta, el paso and of course uvalde. >> for our processes -- purposes, your recognized. >> strike the last word on the -- thank you mr. chairman. the problem with politicians especially in d.c. is that they tell the american people's they are to protect them from harm, from every aspect of people, from every tragedy that we are never going to let a bad thing happen again. the people in this committee say they can stop people and we must do something but they have admitted multiple times that it is all a perfect pretext to ban weapons. if this were about policy, we would be addressing facts. 2% of prosecuted criminals have locked up -- state criminals. 8.8% of criminals obtain their weapons at a gun show. police making arrests and only in percent are crime supported, crime is up, to 2021 arson is up 40% compared to 2019. in san antonio crime is skyrocketing. in chicago, why isn't the u.s. attorney the d.a. there, focusing on straw purchases to address the 800 plus homicides? straw purchases are already a crime from those prohibited from owning a firearm. we have won 7000 deaths skyrocketing across our border -- $107,000 -- 107,000 deaths skyrocketing across the border. hand and knives documented homicides are greater than rifles. we have a cultural rot in this country. this legislation focuses on targeting law-abiding americans. it would make it unlawful to obtain a gun for nonfamily member or friend or a quickness, regardless of their eligibility, like a current law requires. it would make me a criminal several times over, living as i do today. for example, here, i have a 20 gauge single shotgun. i have it right here. i have them sitting in the room out, exposed, why? so i can go kill a snake, and do what i need to go do i kill things because that is what guns are for. i've had them since i was nine years old. my children who are under the age of 18, they know that those guns are to be used only to go kill a snake, to go kill a coyote, or protect a dog that is a chase down or track down that is where we have guns that you are saying if i leave my 20 gauge or 22 sitting out and i have a 12-year-old son, and i do not have that locked up, oh gosh, sorry let me go get the key to go get it unlocked, that is bullshit. that is what it is and that is what you are doing to the american people. now you have part of the provision that says organist at the age. -- says that you are going to set the age. the factors that this is about the last culture war against gun owning and supporting americans, that is what it is about. it is about refusing to acknowledging the fundamental reason and purpose for the second amendment. it is not specifically about hunting or self-defense but even defense against tyranny. i don't expect the term, regarding the ar-15. it is used for hunting primarily. it is the most popular rifle. but even if we were depriving american people of the weapon, most committee members are democrats --what are the citizens supposed to do if the government is to radically trampling the rights? what are we supposed to do? what should americans do if the government in conjunction of international organization attempt to lock us into apartment buildings like they do in china to stamp out covid? what to the american people do? in history, the soviet union established gun control from 1929 to 1953. they have mastered 20 million people. we know about germany and gun control and what it meant for jews in that part of the world in germany and austria. poland and throughout europe. we have china, establishing gun control in 1935 and another 20 million people were massacred. people as people. what we know about the uvalde shooter, it was a psychotic 18-year-old who talked about raping women and hurting animals. for strapping the dignity and role of fathers relating to sans -- sons. in order to tell american people alike, the government will protect them half this company is willing to take away a citizens god-given right to protect him or herself from harm and the very tyranny being applied to them denied that right. >> i recognize myself on the ans. i will be very brief. i will simply express my shock to what i just heard from mr. roy we talked about. using guns to fight tyranny. he is talking about tyranny and american troops. we ought to be able to shoot american troops i find that shocking. i yield back and recognize -- >> i move to strike the last word. mr. chairman, i haven't spoken here today. i have listened for the eight hours. now, in my 22nd year since i came here in january 2001. i have to say that what i found missing from the debate today was some sort of legitimacy to the dialogue about, could we find common ground? quite candidly, mr. chabot said very well, i can find common ground would you consider it and i heard no consideration. many of the members made it clear that there were some aspects to this that they could deal with but not the combination of all of these bills. i think there was a very well orchestrated opening statement by the ranking member that made it clear that some of what is in this bill, and the court ruling is not favorable to what this legislation is written. none of this seems like anything other than, it's an election year, multiple tragedies have happened, so, let's look not at the 86% of mass shootings that involve people over 21 but let's look at that 14% that involved young people under 21. and let's have a bill for that. let's look at a weapon, the ar-15, or similar, and let's try to live in the glory that we had in the 90's when it was previously banned, even though the court has ruled it was not a constitutional move. list goes on. i won't reiterate it. it has been a long day for everyone. i'm going to join the course of republicans and say this, if you want to have sensible gun reform, particularly if you want to protect our children, if you want to protect our schools, if you want to have the kinds of reform that you say you want to have, the let's have a dialogue bill by bill, item by item, if we do that, police we will not have so many statements made, as to the intent. i heard it on both sides, the intent of one versus the other. i do not believe that your motives or anything other than trying to find solutions. mr. jordan i don't believe you're trying to find solutions. i am sad and we did not find solutions here today. every single vote came down on partyline. i hope, the next time we have a markup on a bill, the next time we have a hearing on a bill, that we will all do better. with that, mr. chairman i yield. >> would you please yield? >> thank you, very much. one of the challenges we have the loved ones of dead americans, who have died at the hands of gun violence and died at the hands of perpetrators who may have mental illness. let me not characterize it because that is a small percentage. but there are families, parents who are morning. they need answers. these are well thought out initiatives. >> reclaiming my time, i think this is where mr. massey was repeatedly accurate in giving us facts and figures on what we would or would not accomplish here. so, hopefully when mr. massey is in the majority or at least in a position to be heard and respected, those facts will be put out front and any solutions will be based on the numbers, as they really are. not to take away, from the grieving families that there are families today that are not grieving, because some law-abiding citizen had a weapon and protected that family. that is a balancing act that we, as a nation, balanced on the second amendment since our founding. it has lasted over 245 years. to that i would celebrate that that balance must be maintained. i think all of the members for their participation and i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the question occurs on the amendment. this will be followed immediately by a fighting vote on the passage of the bell. -- bill. reporting quorum being present, requests on the motion. those in favor respond by saying aye, opposed no. the bill as ordered. the roll call voting is requested. >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> aye. >> yes. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> i vote yes. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> absolutely, yes. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> ross votes aye. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. [inaudible] >> mr. bush is trying to get on. if you could just hold on for a second. >> mr. chairman, and my recorded? >> you are not. >> aye. >> miss bush? >> mr. bush you are not recorded. >> miss bush votes yes. >> mr. chairman there are 25 ayes. >> the bill is amended, favorably to the house. [applause] members will have two days to submit views, incorporating all documented amendments. this concludes our business for today, thank you to all of our members for attending. the meeting is adjourned. [no audio] [indiscernible] >> congress is back next weekend will take of gun legislation in response to the uvalde, texas school shooting. the house will vote on a package of gun safety measures, among them are increasing the age limit from 18 to 21 to buy semi automatic rifles like the ones used in the texas shooting. a bipartisan group of senators plan to continue their talks on gun proposals. the senate returns monday at 3:00 p.m. eastern and will spend the week working on legislation for health care and visible -- and health benefits for veterans with toxic exposure. watch the house on c-span and the senate on c-span2, online at c-span.org or with c-span now. >> washington journal, every day we are taking your calls live and on the air of the news of the day and we will discuss policy issues that impact you. coming up we will discuss congressional efforts to address gun violence with the president of the independent firearm owners association and former nra lobbyist. also the chief economist for the national association of realtors talking about the state of the nation housing and rental markets and trends to watch out for. watch washington journal live at 7:00 eastern this morning on c-span or c-span now, our free mobile and video app. join the discussion with billy just with phonebook start with facebook messages, phone calls, text messages, and tweets. >> c-span brings you an unfiltered view of government. "word for word" recaps the day from the halls of congress to daily press briefings to remarks from the president. scan the qr code at the right bottom sign up for the email and stay up-to-date for everything happening in washington each day. subscribe using the qr code or visit c-span.org/connect to subscribe any time. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government funded by these television companies and more including comcast. >> you think this is just a community center, it is more than that. >> comcast is partnering with thousands of community centers to create wi-fi enabled sections so that students and families can get the tools that they need for anything. >> comcast support c-span as a public service along with these other television providers giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> next, president biden at the white house speaks about the need to reform gun laws in the

Related Keywords

Louisiana , United States , El Paso , Texas , Nevada , China , California , Manhattan , New York , Santa Monica , Russia , Connecticut , Ukraine , West Virginia , Mexico , Arizona , Poland , Chicago , Illinois , Georgia , North Carolina , Dayton , Ohio , Atlanta , Washington , Kentucky , Florida , Vietnam , Republic Of , Rhode Island , Columbus , Wisconsin , Togo , San Antonio , Jordan , London , City Of , United Kingdom , Germany , Fort Jackson , Oklahoma , Colorado , Pennsylvania , Houston , Maryland , Sandyhook , Venezuela , Americans , America , Soviet , American , Thomas Massie , Margus Morrison , Aaron Salter , Geraldine Talley , Heyward Patterson , Thomas Jefferson , Rahm Emanuel , Las Vegas , Aubrey Mcneil , Richard Hudson , Waukesha Christmas , Jackson Lee , King George , Roberta Drury , Ruth Whitfield , Katherine Massey ,