[Pages H2277-H2293]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

ENHANCED BACKGROUND CHECKS ACT OF 2019

General Leave

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and insert extraneous material on H.R. 1112, the Enhanced Background
Checks Act of 2019.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 145 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1112.
The Chair appoints the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Underwood) to
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

{time} 0915

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 1112) to amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to
strengthen the background check procedures to be followed before a
Federal firearms licensee may transfer a firearm to a person who is not
such a licensee, with Ms. Underwood in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Collins) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chair, I am pleased that today we are considering H.R. 1112,
the Enhanced Background Checks Act.
Yesterday, the House passed H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks
Act, an important bill to expand our national firearms background check
system to include virtually all gun transfers.
However, there are also steps we can take to make the current
background check system more effective at blocking the sale of guns to
individuals who are ineligible to purchase and possess them.
That is why I support H.R. 1112, a bill that addresses a dangerous
shortcoming in the current firearms background check law.
In most cases, a licensed gun dealer receives notification within a
few minutes, often 90 seconds, from the National Instant Criminal
Background Check System, sometimes called the NICS, that a prospective
buyer has passed or failed the background check.
In a small percentage of cases, NICS examiners may require additional
time to complete the background check if information is missing or
unclear in a prospective buyer's record. For example, there may be on
the record a notation that the prospective buyer was arrested but no
notation as to whether the buyer was acquitted or convicted. That would
have to be looked into further.
However, under current law, a licensed gun dealer conducting a
background check on a prospective purchaser is permitted to sell the
firearm to the purchaser if there has been no determination from NICS
after 3 business days, even though NICS has not indicated that the
person has actually passed the background check.
Often, we refer to this as a default proceed transaction.
These are the very cases that ought to be investigated. In 2017
alone, the ATF determined that over 4,000 default proceed firearms
transfers went to purchasers who should not lawfully have gotten them
because they could not lawfully own a firearm.
If NICS is unable to return an instant determination, and especially
if there is no report after 3 days, there is real cause for concern.
One notable example of the tragic consequences of this loophole is
the hate crime murder of nine people at the Emanuel African Methodist
Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina, in 2015.
In that tragedy, the shooter was not legally allowed to possess a
firearm as a result of drug charges, but he still was able to purchase
his gun from a licensed dealer, who made the decision to transfer after
3 business days had elapsed, despite not having received a definitive
response from the background check system.
The bill before us today, H.R. 1112, would strengthen the background
check procedures Federal firearms licensees or dealers must follow
before selling or transferring a firearm.
Under this bill, the initial period a gun dealer must wait for an
answer from the NICS is extended from 3 days to 10 days. If, after 10
days, the NICS system has not returned an answer to the dealer, the
prospective purchaser may file a petition with the attorney general,
which should help resolve most applications in short order.
If an additional 10 days elapses without a response from NICS, the
licensed firearms dealer then may sell or transfer the firearm to the
prospective purchaser without the background check completion, if the
dealer has no reason to believe that the purchaser is prohibited from
obtaining a firearm under Federal, State, or local law.
The additional time for checks to be completed will help prevent the
transfer of guns to individuals who are ineligible to possess them and
will make us safer.
I want to remind everyone that, in 90 percent of the cases, the NICS
system gives the answer within 90 seconds. So we are talking about a
small number of cases, but a number of cases where we know there have
been tragic results. We want to stop that.
I commend our colleague Congressman Jim Clyburn, the distinguished
Democratic whip, for introducing this bipartisan bill, which is a
sensible and necessary approach to addressing this dangerous
shortcoming in current law.

Madam Chair, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill
today, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Madam Chair, here we go again. Just like yesterday, our colleagues on
the other side of the aisle voted to criminalize the transfer of a
firearm between two law-abiding citizens.
Today, they further reveal this interest by bringing up a bill that
would prohibit law-abiding citizens from ever being able to acquire
firearms. And that is not hyperbole, Madam Chair; it is fact.
Let me briefly explain how that would happen. Allow me to walk
through the mechanics of this legislation.
Let's start at the beginning of the month. Assume I went to a Federal
firearms licensee, an FFL, to purchase a firearm on Friday, February 1,
of this month. Under H.R. 1112, the FBI's NICS system has 10 business
days to respond to the FFL.
The tenth business day is a Friday, February the 15th. If, after
those 10 business days, NICS does not okay the transfer, I must file a
petition with the Department of Justice certifying that I have no
reason to believe that I am prohibited by Federal, State, or local law
from purchasing or possessing a firearm.
Once that petition is filed, the NICS system has an additional 10
days to make a determination. That would be Monday, March 5, in our
example because February 18 was a Federal holiday and not a business
day.
If, at the conclusion of the 20 business days waiting period, NICS
does not deny the transfer, I could then acquire the firearm.
But wait, Madam Chair. Under existing law, the NICS background check
is only valid for 30 calendar days from the date it is initiated. Under
our example, that would be Saturday, March the 2nd, which is 2 days
before my petition is required to be acted upon.

[[Page H2278]]

At that point, I would be required to start the process over again
entirely. There could be no end to this cycle.
Now, I am not sure if H.R. 1112 was written this way out of just
messed-up writing or malice. I am not sure. But it does do this, and
there is no mistaking what is written.
As I have said many times, we do not vote on aspirational ideas in
this Chamber. They are great to debate, but we do not vote on
aspirational ideas. We vote on words on paper, and words on paper are
just as I have described.
I will let the American people determine what the intent was here.
However, as I noted yesterday, in the rush to put this to the floor,
they did not bother to fix some several major issues.
We also know, as we go forward in this that this indefinite and
perpetual delay of the transfer of firearms to law-abiding citizens is
perhaps the intent of this bill.
Keep in mind, under current law, an FFL has the option to transfer
the firearm after 3 business days unless the transfer has been denied
by NICS.
I would contend that 3 business days is not instant and a month is
anything but instant, particularly as technologies continue to advance.
These laws have real-world consequences, and consequences can be
deadly.
Carol Bowne was a New Jersey resident with a restraining order
against her ex-boyfriend. Her application for a firearm took longer
than 40 days to process, and he stabbed her to death while she was
waiting to legally protect herself.
Let that sink in.
This bill would empower abusers and violent predators by making their
victims more vulnerable.
Madam Chair, we oppose this legislation. It doesn't make sense in its
current form. It will do nothing to make our communities safer, but it
will make it harder for law-abiding citizens to exercise their Second
Amendment rights and to defend themselves and their families.
Madam Chair, I am not often going to be able to say this, but I am
joined today by the ACLU, who is opposing this bill and scoring against
this bill.
It is not ready for prime time. It is ready to go back to actually
have hearings and actually do markups and actually work with this bill.
I appreciate the gentleman, especially, from South Carolina's intent.
No one fights stronger for his constituency than the gentleman from
South Carolina. This is just not the right piece of legislation at the
right time for the reasons that I spoke of, that have nothing to do
with the intent. It has everything to do with words on paper. Remember,
Madam Chair, that is what we vote on, not aspirational ideas.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the distinguished Democratic whip.
(Mr. CLYBURN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CLYBURN. Madam Chair, I thank my friend for yielding me the time.
Madam Chair, let me begin my remarks, first of all, by welcoming to
our Capitol today Miss Jennifer Pinckney and her two daughters. They
are the wife and children of Reverend Clementa Pinckney, who, along
with eight of his Bible study parishioners, lost his life to a demented
white supremacist who said that he was interested in starting a race
war.
He entered their church, participated in the Bible study, into which
they welcomed him. And, as they closed their study that evening and
prayed for what they had experienced and for their next meeting, this
gentleman, while their eyes were closed, opened his and slaughtered
them.
I find it interesting that my colleague has talked about the
inconvenience of waiting longer than 3 days to purchase a weapon,
without mentioning those poor souls of Emanuel AME Church.

He has talked about people who might be inconvenienced; he has talked
about something he read in the newspapers; but he has not mentioned
them. Well, I am here today to say that the Members of this august body
need to think a little bit about the value of those lives.
Are they more valuable than the inconvenience a gun purchaser may
have by having to wait 10 rather than 3 days to make a purchase?
What would make one so anxious to purchase a gun in the first place?
If you have got to have a gun right now, chances are you have no useful
purpose, no redeeming value, in the purchase of that gun.
Maybe we ought to participate here, as Members of this body, in
helping this purchaser with a cooling-off period, which is all we are
asking to do here.
Charleston, South Carolina, is nicknamed the ``Holy City.'' Churches
and steeples dominate the skyline of this historic city, which, until
recently, had an ordinance that no building could be constructed higher
than 55 feet, wanting nothing to obstruct its steeples.
Faith is fundamental to the Charleston community. However, that faith
was rocked in June 2015 when this lone gunman rushed into this Bible
study, after having studied the most historic African American churches
in the State of South Carolina and developing a list of five churches,
one of which was Emanuel AME.
He, by his own admission, selected this church because of its
importance to the African American community, being the first organized
place of worship in the South for African Americans.

{time} 0930

He selected this. This was a hate crime of the first order, and we
are saying we should not inconvenience him. And we did not
inconvenience him. We allowed him to get that gun after 3 days, when it
was around the fifth day that they found the glitch in the system and
found him to be ineligible to own a gun.
We just had a gunman go into his workplace in Aurora, Illinois. He
was ineligible to have a gun, but he was allowed to purchase the gun.
When they found out that he was ineligible to have a gun, they then
sent him a letter and said: Please bring us the gun back. You are not
eligible to have a gun.
Give me a break. No, he didn't return the gun, because he had no
redeeming value in having a gun. And he murdered his coworkers. And you
are telling me we should not inconvenience him.
Well, my colleague, the chair of the committee, has laid out for you
the procedure in this bill, a procedure that makes it a maximum,
irrespective of what my colleague may say, it is a maximum of 20
working days, business days, that one would have in order to purchase a
gun.
I would hope, as we move forward here today, we would think about
those poor souls of Emanuel AME Church, and we think about those 4,000
people, 4,200 people, who purchased guns in 2016 using this loophole,
and the 4,800 people who purchased guns in 2017 using this loophole.
Think about their families. Think about their children. And think about
what we are about to do here today.
The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Judy Chu of California). The time of the
gentleman has expired.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, I yield the gentleman from South Carolina an
additional 1 minute.
Mr. CLYBURN. Let me just take this minute to go back to what I had
prepared to say here today.
In troubling times, many of us find solace in the Serenity Prayer:
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the
courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom--wisdom--to know the
difference.
The Charleston loophole is something all Members of Congress should
have the courage to change and, by doing so, grant the American people
the serenity they deserve in their schools, in their entertainment
venues, in their neighborhood streets, and, God forbid, in their places
of worship.
Madam Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 1112, the Enhanced
Background Checks Act of 2019.
Charleston, South Carolina, is nicknamed the Holy City. Church spires
dominate the skyline of this historic city, which, until recently, had
an ordinance that no building could be constructed higher than 55 feet.
In this city, faith is foundational. It is a source of strength and
community that dates back centuries.
However, that faith was rocked in June 2015 when a lone gunman
punctuated his participation in a Bible study at Emanuel AME

[[Page H2279]]

Church with gunshots fired upon the parishioners who had welcomed him,
killing nine and wounding three others. The shooter targeted this place
of worship because of its historic significance to the African-American
community. This egregious hate crime shattered the sanctity of the Holy
City, and in response Congress observed a moment of silence and all
Americans offered thoughts and prayers.
While a moment of silence and our thoughts and prayers are
appreciated in times of tragedy, they do nothing to solve the
underlying problem. The real tragedy in Charleston is it could have
been prevented. The gunman acquired the weapon used in the massacre
because of a fault in the law that is now known as the Charleston
Loophole. The gun purchase was subject to a background check; however,
when a glitch in the system caused the background review to take more
than the three-day limit allowed by law, the gunman was able to
purchase the weapon, although it was later found that he was ineligible
to purchase a gun. The system failed to stop this gun sale to an
ineligible purchaser and 4,864 others in 2017.
It has been 25 years since the Brady Bill became law, and there has
been no significant legislation enacted since to stem gun violence. Yet
in 2017, 100 people were killed each day in this country with a
firearm--which touches every district represented in this august body.
A vote in support of the Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019
extends the time allowed for law enforcement to conduct background
checks. Under this bill, if the background check isn't concluded within
10 business days, the purchaser can request an expedited background
check, which notifies law enforcement of the urgency of the review and
starts an additional 10 business day period for the background check to
be completed. While more than 96 percent of background checks are
completed within three days--and 90 percent of Americans support
background checks--this expedited review allows for law enforcement to
complete the small percentage that may take longer than three days. If
at the end of the expedited review the background check is
inconclusive, then the purchase may proceed.
Restricting the Charleston Loophole doesn't prohibit law abiding
citizens from purchasing a gun, but it does provide more time, if
needed, for law enforcement to ensure weapons are not sold to those
with criminal convictions or mental illness. This is an important first
step our country should take to protect our citizens and their first
amendment rights.
In troubling times many of us find solace in the Serenity prayer--
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the
difference.'' The Charleston Loophole is something all Members of
Congress should have the courage to change and grant the American
people the serenity they deserve in their schools, entertainment
venues, neighborhood streets and--God forbid--their places of worship.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Look, I have great sympathy for what the gentleman from South
Carolina just spoke of. But, also, I have even greater sympathy for the
fact it could have been avoided and had nothing, frankly, to do at the
end when the FBI under Mr. Comey actually admitted that there were
mistakes made. The FBI could have stopped that instead of letting it
happen. They saw problems. They let it go. It could have stopped.
This was already in law, Madam Chair. It could have stopped.
Yes, what I laid out for you is not just simply 20 business days,
when you look at the fact that, coupled with other restrictions, it can
do what we said.
I have great sympathy and grief for every loss of life, no matter
where it comes from. But to simply say that this would have fixed it,
when the FBI and others knew they could have fixed it at that moment
and could have went later and got the guns, because there was a delay
even in the horrific act that happened--again, we are simply talking
about what is on the paper.
Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. McClintock).
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Chairman, we all deplore and mourn the
monstrous, despicable, and evil massacre in Charleston. But that
terrible crime was committed 67 days after the perpetrator applied to
purchase the firearm.
As Mr. Collins said, this was preventable if, under current law, it
was a failure of the FBI and not of the law.
This bill is not about public safety. Most gun predators already get
their firearms illegally. A recent Johns Hopkins study found that
California's universal background check had no effect on gun violence.
Their true objective is to make gun ownership by law-abiding people
so legally hazardous and so bureaucratically time-consuming that people
simply give up. This bill cleverly and, I believe, insidiously sets up
a potentially never-ending bureaucratic review process.
As Mr. Collins said, a background check is only good for 30 calendar
days from the day you apply. But this bill sets up a 20-business-day
delay process. Now, what that means is, if a single holiday falls
within that window, or the store is closed on weekends, or you slip a
single day on that timetable, your background check is no longer valid,
and you have to start all over again in a perpetual cycle of Kafkaesque
proportions.
Now, would a bureaucracy be so abusive as to play this game? Well, of
course it would. Just ask Lois Lerner.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Bass), the chair of the Crime, Terrorism and Homeland
Security Subcommittee.
Ms. BASS. Madam Chair, I support H.R. 1112, the Enhanced Background
Checks Act of 2019 as a commonsense measure to improve the current
firearms background check system and to save lives.
Twenty-five years ago today, we began implementation of the Brady
Background Checks Act. The system it employs to run background checks
on those seeking to purchase firearms from licensed gun dealers has
made us safer.
Now it is time to address the circumstances in which the FBI needs
additional time to investigate information relating to a prospective
purchaser when the records may not be immediately clear as to whether
someone is legally allowed to purchase a firearm.
Under current law, after 3 days, a gun dealer has the discretion to
sell a gun to a purchaser, if the system has not given a green light to
the sale after 3 business days have passed without a denial being
issued by the system. In these circumstances, it is the choice of the
dealer as to whether to proceed with the sale, which we call a default
proceed, or whether to wait for the check to be implemented.
The results of such a choice were tragic in Charleston, South
Carolina, in 2015, when a young man filled with hate shot and killed
nine worshippers at the Emanuel AME Church. The gun used in this murder
had been transferred by a gun dealer to the shooter even though the
check had not been completed by the FBI, but would have resulted in a
denial had the check been finished.
This is not an isolated incident. Since 1994, gun sellers proceeded
with between 3,000 and 4,000 default proceed sales per year. Analyzing
data provided by the Department of Justice, one study found that such
sales are eight times more likely to involve a prohibited purchaser
than other background checks.
In 2017 alone, default proceed sales accounted for more than 4,800
transfers to purchasers who were prohibited from owning firearms. The
FBI reported that, in 2007 and 2008, in cases a licensed seller sold a
firearm through default proceed transfers----
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Chairman, I yield the gentlewoman from California
an additional 30 seconds.
Ms. BASS. The FBI reported that, in 2007 and 2008, in cases where a
licensed seller sold a firearm through default proceed transfers,
approximately 22 percent of the individuals investigated were legally
prohibited from purchasing or possessing a firearm.
The additional time provided by H.R. 1112 is not too much to ask so
that we may help prevent tragedies such as the Charleston shooting from
happening. This is why I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting
this bill today.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cline).
Mr. CLINE. Madam Chair, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia
for the time.
Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1112. This
legislation is an attack on the constitutional rights of

[[Page H2280]]

Americans. This bill puts incredible roadblocks in the way of law-
abiding citizens seeking to exercise their Second Amendment rights that
are guaranteed to them in the Constitution.
We should be focused on enforcing the current laws that we have on
the books instead of passing Federal mandates that stifle freedom. This
bill creates a bureaucratic maze that will allow the Federal Government
to sit on its hands and force citizens to submit formal petitions to
the Attorney General when they are trying to legally purchase a
firearm, to ask permission to exercise their constitutional right.
What other constitutional right would you suggest we put this level
of restriction on? The freedom of the press? The freedom of religion?
Should we start having the Federal Government review every media
outlet's story for 10 days before they can be published? before a
church can meet for worship? I don't think so.
It is my hope that we will soon move forward with solutions,
solutions that will actually make a difference for hardworking
Americans across this great country.
When I was sworn in as a Member of the House earlier this year, I saw
great potential for Congress to come together and advance solutions to
our Nation's greatest problems. Instead, I find myself standing here on
the floor of this Chamber fighting for the basic liberties that our
Founding Fathers sought to guarantee for every American.
Madam Chair, I will continue to stand and continue to fight each and
every day, and I urge the House to reject this misguided legislation.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Ms. Underwood).
Ms. UNDERWOOD. Madam Chair, everyone deserves to feel safe in their
community, whether they are at work, at home, at school, or at church.
Less than 2 weeks ago, five people, four of whom were my
constituents, left their homes for work at the Henry Pratt Company in
Aurora, Illinois, and never returned. Their lives were taken by a
horrific act of gun violence.
I am committed to honoring the lives of the victims of gun violence
through action. H.R. 1112 is an important bill that will help address a
deficiency in background check laws by allowing law enforcement to
conduct a thorough background check. I am proud to cosponsor an
amendment that will help ensure this legislation improves the safety of
victims of domestic violence, domestic abuse, dating partner violence,
sexual assault, and stalking.
Yesterday was the first time in more than two decades that this U.S.
House of Representatives passed a major gun safety bill, and today we
have an opportunity to take a further step. H.R. 1112 will help save
innocent lives, and I look forward to working on commonsense
legislation that balances protecting our gun rights and ensuring the
safety of our communities.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Chair, I yield as much time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. David P. Roe).
Mr. DAVID P. ROE of Tennessee. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Madam Chair, I rise today to fight for the rights of the brave men
and women who have risked their lives fighting for our rights.
The bill we are debating, H.R. 1112, would have a significant impact
on veterans' Second Amendment rights. A little-known and poorly
understood provision of H.R. 1112 would amend the law to make it
unlawful for an individual who has been ``adjudicated with mental
illness, severe developmental disability, or severe emotional
instability'' to purchase, to possess a firearm. It would make it
illegal to sell a firearm to such an individual.
Let's put this in perspective. There are over 1.6 million disabled
veterans with service-connected adjudication by VA of mental illness,
including 1 million veterans with PTSD. H.R. 1112 has the potential to
add all those names of veterans to the FBI NICS list and prevent those
veterans from being able to purchase or possess a firearm.
Now, I know that may not have been the intent of the author of this
bill, but that is a lot of veterans who will be impacted if this
becomes law.
I offered an amendment at the Rules Committee to clarify that
veterans with VA PTSD, diagnosed mental illness, and other affected
adjudications would be exempted from the bill's standards, but it was
ruled out of order.
VA already sends the names of veterans who have a VA fiduciary for
inclusion on the NICS list--not because there is a concern that the
veteran might be a harm to themselves or others, but because the VA has
determined that the veteran needs assistance handling his or her
financial benefits.

{time} 0945

I am concerned that the expanded definition proposed in H.R. 1112
would infringe on the Second Amendment rights of over 1 million
veterans solely because they receive benefits from VA that they have
rightly earned through their service to our great country.
The last thing any of us in this room want to do is to discourage
veterans from seeking VA benefits and treatment because they are afraid
it might cost them a constitutional right. Think about that.
Although there may not have been a finding by a judicial authority
that a veteran poses a danger to themselves or society, these veterans
will be told that they were good enough to use a firearm to fight for
our freedoms, but they are not good enough to have the freedom to bear
arms as a civilian.
That is wrong, Madam Chair. Even criminals must be convicted in a
court of law before their names are added to the NICS list.
Of all Americans who deserve their constitutional rights, the most
deserving are those who fought for our country. Madam Chair, that is
why I strongly oppose H.R. 1112, and I urge my colleagues to vote
``no'' on this bill.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Georgia (Mrs. McBath), a member of the committee.
Mrs. McBATH. Madam Chair, I thank Chairman Nadler for yielding.
Madam Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 1112, the Enhanced Background
Checks Act of 2019.
After losing my son Jordan to gun violence in 2012, I began reaching
out to other families who recently lost a loved one to gun violence. I
would send them letters. That is how I came to know Reverend Sharon
Risher of Charlotte, North Carolina.
On June 17, 2017, Reverend Risher lost her mother, two cousins, and a
childhood friend when a young man shot and killed nine people during a
prayer service at the Emanuel Church in Charleston, South Carolina.
Today, with H.R. 1112, we can close the loophole in background checks
for the gun purchase that led to their terrible loss. I support this
legislation for Reverend Sharon Risher and the memory of her family and
her loved ones.
Tragically, this was not the last time our country witnessed horrific
violence in a place of worship. A few months ago, the shooting at the
Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, took the lives of
11 human beings.
Our places of worship, whether they are churches, synagogues,
mosques, or something else, should be safe places of love, support, and
community. H.R. 1112 would allow law enforcement the time that they
need to make sure all these community centers are places of peace and
safety.
Yesterday, we voted to expand background checks. Today, we vote to
make sure those background checks are thorough, even if a few of them
take a few more days to process. Those few extra days will save lives.
In the days after the Emanuel shooting, I was there in the community
praying with the community and dealing with their pain and loss.
America deserves better than this.
Why not make sure that we are doing everything that we can to protect
them? A few more days in making sure that the FBI has the ability to
really soundly make a conscious and critical decision, America deserves
that.
Madam Chair, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Madam Chair, I heard the argument from the other side a moment ago
that people adjudged ineligible for the system by the VA, that their
names

[[Page H2281]]

should not be given into the system so that they may purchase firearms.
I would point out that one of the largest sources of mortality among
veterans is suicide. Veterans are, I think, the highest group in our
society in terms of suicide rate. So it really makes sense to make it
easier for people adjudged not to be proper to have a gun to have a gun
if you are worried about suicides. That argument is, frankly,
nonsensical. I am very glad the VA helps protect our veterans by
participating in the system.
Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island
(Mr. Cicilline), a member of the committee and the chairman of one of
our subcommittees.
Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Chair, I thank the chairman for yielding.
Madam Chair, I would just point out in further support of Mr.
Nadler's remarks, on average, 20 veterans commit suicide every single
day in this country, and two-thirds of those suicides are caused by use
of a gun. So Mr. Nadler is quite right.
Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1112 to close the
Charleston loophole.
We have heard a lot about what is at stake in terms of constitutional
rights as it relates to possession of a firearm. There are other
constitutional rights that are at issue here, and that is the right to
life, liberty, the right to live free of gun violence and death, the
right of a grandmother to sit on her porch and enjoy a summer evening
free from the dangers of gun violence, the right of young children to
play in a playground and play safely.
So this legislation is very important because it closes a very
significant loophole in our law.
Over the last two decades, the Charleston loophole has allowed more
than 60,000 purchases of guns by prohibited individuals.
Let that sink in.
Sixty thousand people who are prohibited from having a gun by law
were allowed to get those guns because of this loophole.
One of those purchasers was a white supremacist who used the gun that
he purchased to kill nine worshippers at the Mother Emanuel Church in
South Carolina. Even though he had a felony drug charge on his record,
this killer was able to buy a gun because his background check wasn't
completed in 3 days.
And he isn't the only one, of course. A 2016 GAO report found that,
between 2006 and 2015, guns were transferred to about 6,700 people with
domestic violence convictions and more than 500 individuals with
prohibiting protective orders.
So there are many, many examples where the American people are less
safe because criminals and disqualified people can access a firearm
because the background check wasn't completed in 3 days. This is a very
simple commonsense solution to that problem.
Our laws will not work if we don't keep guns out of the hands of
criminals, dangerous people, other disqualified purchasers, and this
bill does that. This is a commonsense proposal.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I
thank Mr. Clyburn for his leadership, and I thank Mr. Nadler for
bringing these bills before the Judiciary Committee so we can finally
take some responsible action to reduce gun violence in this country.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Chair, I am actually glad, and one
thing I will agree on with my friend just now is I do agree that there
is a right to life, and that is why I would love to see this House
bring forth the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which
also protects life as well.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chair, at this time I would like to address a concern that has
been raised by one section of the bill that is unrelated to the changes
to current law to address the Charleston loophole.
Section 3 of the bill replaces outdated and offensive terminology in
the categories of individuals who are ineligible to purchase or possess
firearms under current law. Among those included, there are individuals
subject to such prohibitions because, as stated by the current law,
they are ``adjudicated as a mental defective.''
At the Judiciary Committee's markup of the bill, we agreed with our
ranking member, Representative Collins, to replace this offensive
language and to insert different terminology in the bill as a
placeholder as we work to develop alternative language that does not
alter the scope of who is included in these prohibitions and to work
with stakeholders who have an interest in how this would be
accomplished.
We have heard from various advocates in the mental health, disability
rights, and veterans communities who have expressed their desire to
develop an acceptable alternative. We agree.
Yesterday, the Veterans of Foreign Wars brought their concerns
related to this issue to our attention. The VFW agrees that the current
terminology is archaic but is concerned about a potential unintended
consequence of replacing it.
Their concern is that replacing these terms with ``mental illness,''
``severe developmental disability,'' or ``severe emotional
instability'' could result in some veterans who are not now included
being added to the NICS index due to their receipt of VA care or
benefits for mental illnesses such as PTSD or traumatic brain injury.
It is not the intent of the changes in this terminology made by
section 3 to alter the scope of those currently considered to be
``adjudicated as a mental defective.'' It is the intent simply to
replace that offensive language, but not to change the underlying law.
We will work with stakeholders, including the VFW, the mental health
community, and the disability rights community to address the concerns
related to this outdated terminology in a manner that does not change
the scope of present law as this bill proceeds.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Madam Chair, I do appreciate the gentleman from New York clarifying
that, but he just clarified it in the very way--because we had brought
this up. It was late in the day, and we brought this up, and this
language was offensive. And, frankly, Ms. Lofgren, who was in the chair
at the time, presented this language as an alternative to get us to a
place where, as we talked about, we could get to Rules to actually fix
this.
This is why I have said so many times that I have not--I understand
the majority's willingness to bring the bill forward. What I didn't
understand here is the willingness of this majority to put themselves
on a time table to bring bills that were not ready. The reason we did
it that night was so that we could get to Rules.
I served on the Rules Committee for 4 years. We could have fixed it
at Rules.
Dr. Roe actually just brought an amendment to Rules, but it was
rejected.
I understand that now we are going to continue forward.
I have a daughter who has spina bifida, and many would say ``mental
defective.'' For anyone in that community who believes that those who
are born that way would be a mental defective is a problem. It needs to
be fixed.
But the problem that we have here was a committee process that broke
and a Rules process that broke. There were plenty of opportunities to
address this, plenty of opportunities to discuss this. In the rush to
do, again, what I said yesterday many times, what makes you feel good
does not always heal you, now you have a problem, a valid problem.
But it was not a problem from the perspective of not trying to fix
it. It came from the heart on both sides of the aisle to say this
language is archaic, this language should not be there. There were
plenty of times to fix it.
I appreciate the chairman. I am glad to hear his willingness to
continue to work on this. What would another day have taken? What
problem would an amendment voted up or down by Dr. Roe have caused on
the floor?

I guess when the ACLU and others started scoring against it, we
decided we might need to fix it.
Again, this is a process problem. I know nobody likes to talk about
process problems because, at the end of the day, I believe the authors'
intents behind these bills, I believe their intents

[[Page H2282]]

are good. I believe their process may be wrong, and I will speak to
that, but this is a problem that we have.
I am glad the chairman is moving forward, I am glad the chairman is
looking at this, and I am glad the chairman is willing to address this
going forward, but it is just sad that we had to get here today,
because this could have been fixed except for an arbitrary timeline put
onto my chairman that he really had no control over, I believe, to
bring something forward that is not ready for prime time.
I respect my chairman. I am glad that he has addressed this. I hope
that they will give him plenty of time in the future to continue to
work these problems out.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chair, our mistake was in accepting the amendment from the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins). The amendment dealt with the
underlying language of the underlying law, not with the bill. We should
have insisted that an attempt to correct that language be in a separate
bill.
The gentleman from Georgia is now telling us that we should kill this
bill that will save so many lives because we have not figured out
acceptable language to replace existing bad language in the existing
law that had nothing to do with this bill.
We should pass this bill.
We will work as we go forward to see if we can come up with
acceptable language, but in any event, we should pass this bill and
deal with the separate problem of bad language in the underlying law
separately.
Madam Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York has 6 minutes
remaining.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Ms. Kelly).

{time} 1000

Ms. KELLY of Illinois. Madam Chair, I rise today for Myra Thompson
and Susie Jackson, people who were murdered in their church during a
Bible study. And I rise for the tens of thousands of Americans who will
die if Congress does not close the Charleston loophole.
In 2015, the FBI reported that more than 270,000 guns were sold
because the NICS system failed to issue a ``do not sale'' order within
3 days.
One was sold to a man with a hate-filled heart, as we have heard. He
walked into Mother Emanuel church in Charleston, South Carolina, a
historically Black church, and murdered nine people who were simply
seeking to get closer to their God.
Madam Chair, we have seen this time and time again. Our houses of
worship are not safe from gun violence: Mother Emanuel, First Baptist
Church in Sutherland Springs, Tree of Life, Oak Creek's house of
worship, and the list goes on and on.
We talk about PTSD, post-traumatic stress disorder. Just recently, I
heard someone in the Chicago area talk about PTSD, but it was
``present-traumatic stress disorder'' because of all the guns that are
in the streets in the hands of people who should not have them.
Madam Chair, today, I challenge my colleagues to do the right thing:
Pass this bill and save lives. Pass this bill and prevent dangerous
people from getting guns. Pass this law because you never know if it
will be your son or mother who could be next, gunned down by doing
something as routine as praying.
Today, we need to do the right thing. Today, we need to pass H.R.
1112. Today, we need to honor the Emanuel 9 and close the Charleston
loophole.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Madam Chair, I can go back through my opening statement and list the
many reasons I oppose this bill that have nothing to do with the
amendment that should have been fixed by the time we got to Rules,
which was agreed upon. Actually, the language was given by Ms. Lofgren
and staff, and we said that we will take that and move to Rules to fix
it.
If you go back and look at my statement, I am opposing this bill for
many other reasons that are very valid. I believe when you look for
timing, you look for other things.
Again, I believe working the process is proper. Working the process
will go through. The majority brought this to the floor, and they
should have the votes to pass it. If not, then the Senate can work on
this language, and we go forward.
I think the bigger issue is the very fundamental issue of the timing
of this bill, the timing that it is not just 20 days, and it is not
just 10 days. There is another, when you couple it with the actual 30-
day restriction on the application itself. So there are plenty of
reasons for me to oppose this bill.
The other part was simply a discussion that should have been fixed
and wasn't. That is a tragedy, that we are coming to the floor and that
even be a problem. But at the end of the day, we pointed it out, we
tried to, and that is where it is at.
My problem with this bill is the bill itself and much of the language
that we have here.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the committee.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, I thank the chairman and Mr. Clyburn,
who, for years, has been working on this issue.
Madam Chair, H.R. 1112, the Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019,
is long in coming. It responds to many people, but it responds to
Dylann Roof.
In 2015, he went to a gun store to get a gun. He was not the normal
purchaser, and it did not approve in 90 seconds, as most of them do.
But in a day or two, when it had not yet been approved, Dylann Roof was
able to get a gun. And Dylann Roof's whole message was: I am going to
start a race war by going into an unlocked church on a prayer night and
kill nine worshippers praying to their God and their pastor--whose wife
was here today.
The question has to be: When are we going to stop the senseless
killings and the eons and eons of mass shootings?
My good friend from Georgia (Mr. Collins) is a man of faith. I was in
the committee room as a senior member on the Subcommittee on Crime,
Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations as we were trying to
deliberate his concern, a very vital concern, one that I have, to love
people with disabilities, to love them and treat them with dignity.
The language in this legislation does that as best we could at the
time, because it puts the language adjudicated, determined by some
objective body, that you have a health problem that deals with a mental
concern.
The question has to be, if it is not workable, you pass the bill. All
of us have made a commitment to work through this process and to give
dignity to every person, including veterans.
But at the same time, would you want to have a situation that
happened with Dylann Roof, a convicted felon who grabbed a gun in 2
days and killed nine innocent people, or killed people in various other
places, from Columbine, to Aurora, to Virginia Tech?
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Look at the stories of mass shootings, or look at
the violence in cities where people are getting guns.
Madam Chair, I would make the argument that, today, we must pass H.R.
1112. The mercy of all of us dealing with issues to give dignity to
those who suffer from illnesses that embrace mental illness concerns,
it was because Mr. Collins, a man of faith, offered that suggestion.
Therefore, we are going to move forward with the commitment to work it
through and provide the dignity necessary, but to save the lives and to
give tribute in death to those who lost their lives at the hands of
Dylann Roof. Vote for H.R. 1112.
Madam Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 1112, the ``Enhanced
Background Checks Act of 2019,'' legislation that would strengthen the
background check system that is already in place to purchase a firearm.
I thank the Majority Whip, Congressman Clyburn, for introducing H.R.
1112 in response to the atrocity perpetrated at Mother Emmanuel A.M.E.
Church in Charleston,

[[Page H2283]]

South Carolina, which killed nine members of one of the most
historically significant churches in African American history.
One June 17, 2015, Dylann Roof was responsible for the mass shooting
that took the lives of nine individuals at the Emanuel African
Methodist Episcopal Church.
The victims were later referred to as ``The Charleston Nine'' and
``The Emanuel Nine''.
Under current law, after a prospective buyer completes the
appropriate form, the holder of a Federal Firearms License initiates
the background check by phone or computer.
If a determination is not obtained within three business days then
the transfer may legally be completed by default proceeding and that is
how Dylan Roof obtain the handgun he used to commit the killings, which
he purchased from a retail store in West Columbia, SC.
H.R 1112, the ``Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019,'' would
strengthen the background check procedures that firearms licensees or
dealers follow before selling or transferring a firearm.
As under current law, firearms dealers would be required to run a
background check on prospective buyers using the National Instant
Criminal Background Check System (``NICS'').
Over 90% of NICS checks are completed within 90 seconds.
Under H.R. 1112, if the NICS system has not returned an answer to the
licensed firearms dealer within ten days, the prospective firearms
purchaser may file a petition with the Attorney General for review.
Then, after another ten-day period has expired, the licensed firearms
dealer may sell or transfer the firearm to the prospective purchaser if
it has not received a response through the NICS system and the dealer
has no reason to believe that the purchaser is prohibited from
obtaining a firearm under federal, state, or local law.
Under this measure, licensed firearms dealers could not sell or
transfer under the ``default proceed'' provision until at least 20 days
have passed since the initial background check, thus closing the so-
called ``Charleston loophole.''
An internal assessment by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
demonstrated that the National Instant Criminal Background Checks
System (``NICS'') yields results that are approximately 99.3 percent to
99.8 percent accurate, and in 90 percent of cases, are processed within
90 seconds.
We must be constructive and proactive in our response to the
countless mass shootings and gun violence in our country that continue
to claim so many innocent lives.
Newly released data from the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (``CDC'') found firearm-related deaths rose for the second-
straight year in 2016, largely due to spikes in gun violence.
In 2016, the new CDC report on preliminary mortality data shows that
there were more than 38,000 gun-related deaths in the U.S.--4,000 more
than 2015.
An Associated Press analysis of FBI data shows there were about
11,000 gun-related homicides in 2016, up from 9,600 in 2015.
Congress must act to keep our country safe through gun safety and
violence deterrence.
There is nearly one mass shooting per day in the United State--355
mass shootings in 2015.
In December 2012, a gunman walked into Sandy Hook Elementary School
in Newtown, Connecticut, and killed 20 children, 6 adults, and himself.
Since December 2012, there have been at least 1,518 mass shootings,
with at least 1,715 people killed and 6,089 wounded.
On the night of October 1, 2017, a gunman opened fire on a large
crowd of concertgoers at the Route 91 Harvest Music Festival on the Las
Vegas Strip, leaving 58 people dead and 527 injured.
On November 5, 2017, a mass shooting occurred at the First Baptist
Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, where the gunman, 26-year-old
Devin Patrick Kelley, killed 26 and injured 20 others.
Every day, on average, 92 Americans are victims of gun violence,
resulting in more than 33,000 deaths annually.
States with higher gun ownership rates have higher gun murder rates--
as much as 114 percent higher than other states.
A recent study by the CDC looking at 30 years of homicide data found
that for every 1 percent increase in a state's gun ownership rate,
there is a nearly 1 percent increase in its firearm homicide rate.
Gun death rates are generally lower in states with restrictions such
as safe storage requirements or assault weapons bans.
Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 33 years: 0.
This is why legislation put forward to arm teachers is not the
solution.
Stronger legislation is needed to prevent guns from getting into the
wrong hands because unfortunately, more than 75 percent of the weapons
used in mass shootings between 1982 and 2012 were obtained legally.
We must look at gun violence in its totality to determine what are
the root causes of these alarming rates of lives cut short.
We are elected by our constituents to lead in resolving the issues
that plague our country, and the issue of gun violence is a definite
plague across the nation.
My good friend, Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo, gave a statement
after four of his officers were shot while on duty.
He rightfully admonished us elected officials who, so far, have
accomplished absolutely nothing about the public-health epidemic of gun
violence.
Thanks to the new Democratic majority in Congress, we had a long
overdue Gun Safety Hearing in the Judiciary Committee.
That hearing is the first step in the legislative process of
addressing the epidemic.
Chief Acevedo was a witness at that hearing, testifying that if the
proposed legislation on background checks is enacted and saves at least
one life, then it is worth it.
Back in my state, despite incident after incident of rampant gun
violence, Texas Governor Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton,
both prominent Republican opponents of gun control, issued the usual
statements offering the usual thoughts and prayers.
Chief Acevedo said, ``I appreciate your prayers . . . but the
question is, what are policymakers willing to do, besides prayers, to
address a public-health epidemic?''
I want to answer his question--``what ARE we going to do?''
We are going to overcome the fierce opposition from House minority
members.
We are going to overcome a recalcitrant and reluctant Senate.
And finally, we are going to overcome the opposition of the President
and the gun lobby.
I am a defender and supporter of the constitution.
I appreciate the Second Amendment and the right that it provides our
citizens.
However, I am also a defender of the right to live, the greatest
divine right of all.
I want all Americans to enjoy their Second Amendment right, but not
at the expense of the lives of our children, students, communities, and
law enforcement officials.
Imagine going to grade school in this day and age and having to
undergo ``active shooter'' drills.
Imagine having children in grade school today.
Imagine the anxiety parents feel knowing that any day the precious
lives of their children may be interrupted by someone with an AK-47 or
AR-15.
Imagine a brighter future for America's children, one that does not
include active shooter drills and funerals for adolescents.
We can help make that future a reality and we can start by voting to
pass H.R. 1112, the ``Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019,''
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Madam Chair, in closing, we have had an interesting debate this
morning. I think we went back on two points.
One, I believe I laid out the problems in a very methodical way on
why this bill has serious defects in it that could possibly be fixed,
if given long enough to work. I still may disagree with the premise of
the bill, but it could have been worked out, when you actually take one
part of law and combine it with another part of law. And we have seen a
calendaring problem here. That is one part. That is the main part I
have.
I think we have also seen how the process has not worked out again.
Sometimes in life, getting it first is not best. Getting it quickly may
not always be the best result. I think what we are seeing here is
something that when we are dealing with the rights of individuals,
especially in this area here and especially for the reasons that were
given, which was a tragedy in Charleston that could have been stopped
by the FBI that already had suspicions on not selling this firearm and
could have went and taken that firearm, this is just a problem.
I have laid out as much as I can. I think the speakers have as well.
There are many opposed to this. They will continue to be opposed to it,
on both sides of the spectrum, our side from the perspective of our
rights and those that are being violated, and the ACLU for what their
reasons may be and others.
But it is time we had some honest discussion about what can actually
deter this mass violence that we are seeing. Unfortunately, Madam
Chair, we always speak of mass violence.
Why do we always have to go to the big violence? Why do we have to go
to the ones who were killed that are tragedies that we all see? What
about the ones that we can actually work on

[[Page H2284]]

where we give better enforcement to our law enforcement, better
prosecution of gun crimes, better prosecution that affects a single
life in a neighborhood today? Is a single life not as important as the
ones that we are not affecting now?
I think as we look forward, I would ask that this, of course, be
voted down. I think we have laid out a reason why it at least should be
considered by all Members before they put their card in that machine to
decide why they are supporting a bill that we believe has some obvious
flaws to it. It is not the intent of the individual offering it, but
the actual words on paper have flaws in them. That is why we oppose
this bill.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chair, this is an important bill that addresses a significant,
and tragically demonstrated, threat to public safety.
Today is the 25th anniversary of the implementation of the Brady
Background Check Act. This lifesaving law has served us well, helping
to prevent firearms from getting into the hands of those who are
legally prohibited from possessing and purchasing them. But we know
that some aspects of this law and the system that implements it must be
updated and improved.
Let's remember what this bill does. All this bill does is give the
FBI additional time--gives the NICS system additional time--to complete
a background check in the 8 or 9 percent of cases where it is not done
within 90 seconds. If you haven't gotten a background check back in 3
days, under this bill, you can't get it automatically, and you can't
get the weapon automatically.
They have 10 days to do it. If after 10 days they still haven't done
it, then you can petition the Attorney General. And if they still don't
do it, get your firearm within 10 days. That will save a lot of lives.
We hear about mass shootings, but we also should remember that we are
not talking about just mass shootings. Thirty-four people a day are
killed in this country by guns--34 a day. Every other industrialized
country in the world: 90 deaths with guns a year, 120, 170. The United
States: 39,000.
How are we different? Are we thousands of times more mentally ill
than people in Europe or Japan? No.
Are we more vicious? No.
Are our habits more degraded? No.
The difference is that this country is awash in guns. The difference
is that, in this country, people who are dangerous can get guns.
These are modest steps. We should take much more advanced steps. We
should ban assault weapons. We should ban large capacity magazine
clips. But we are not doing that. We are starting with very moderate
steps.
This is a very moderate step to improve the background check system.
With all the rhetoric we hear, that is all it does. It gives a little
extra time to make sure that someone who is dangerous, whose possession
of a firearm is illegal, cannot get it.
Enacting this bill will save lives. I urge my colleagues to ignore
all the nonsense rhetoric about extraneous considerations. Join me in
supporting this bill today. Join me in supporting saving lives. Join me
in making the United States a little safer to live in.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JOHNSON of Texas. I rise today to voice my support for H.R. 1112,
The Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019. This bill will strengthen
our federal gun background check procedures by closing the
``Charleston'' loophole, thus ensuring that guns can no longer be
erroneously sold due to incomplete background checks.
This epidemic of gun violence has left its scars on my home state of
Texas. A recent study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
revealed that there were 3,353 gun-related deaths in Texas in 2017
alone. Hundreds of these victims are children and teenagers under 19
years of age.
Our country has struggled with gun violence for too long, and the
multitudes of loopholes in our laws are complicit in our difficulties.
This bill will not only eliminate a significant loophole, but it will
do so without infringing upon Second Amendment rights. It will ensure
that only responsible and able individuals are able to purchase guns in
our country.
I share our nation's concerns about the widespread proliferation of
guns in our neighborhoods, and I agree that reasonable restrictions on
firearms are essential to a comprehensive strategy to reduce crime and
violence in our society. We must take sensible steps to ensure that
these firearms do not fall into the wrong hands.
Furthermore, it has come to my attention that the mental illness
reference in this bill may be outdated and not in line with current
medical and legal standards. I will be reviewing this issue as we
progress through the 116th Congress.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.-
The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by
the Committee on the Judiciary, printed in the bill, an amendment in
the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee
Print 116-6 is adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as an
original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the 5-minute
rule and shall be considered as read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

H.R. 1112

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Enhanced Background Checks
Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. STRENGTHENING OF BACKGROUND CHECK PROCEDURES TO BE
FOLLOWED BEFORE A FEDERAL FIREARMS LICENSEE MAY
TRANSFER A FIREARM TO A PERSON WHO IS NOT SUCH
A LICENSEE.

Section 922(t)(1)(B)(ii) of title 18, United States Code is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking clause (ii) and
inserting the following:
``(ii) in the event the system has not notified the
licensee that the receipt of a firearm by such other person
would violate subsection (g) or (n) of this section--
``(I) not fewer than 10 business days (meaning a day on
which State offices are open) has elapsed since the licensee
contacted the system, and the system has not notified the
licensee that the receipt of a firearm by such other person
would violate subsection (g) or (n) of this section, and the
other person has submitted, electronically through a website
established by the Attorney General or by first-class mail, a
petition for review which--
``(aa) certifies that such other person has no reason to
believe that such other person is prohibited by Federal,
State, or local law from purchasing or possessing a firearm;
and
``(bb) requests that the system respond to the contact
referred to in subparagraph (A) within 10 business days after
the date the petition was submitted (or, if the petition is
submitted by first-class mail, the date the letter containing
the petition is postmarked); and
``(II) 10 business days have elapsed since the other person
so submitted the petition, and the system has not notified
the licensee that the receipt of a firearm by such other
person would violate subsection (g) or (n) of this section;
and''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(7) The Attorney General shall--
``(A) prescribe the form on which a petition shall be
submitted pursuant to paragraph (1)(B)(ii);
``(B) make the form available electronically, and provide a
copy of the form to all licensees referred to in paragraph
(1);
``(C) provide the petitioner and the licensee involved
written notice of receipt of the petition, either
electronically or by first-class mail; and
``(D) respond on an expedited basis to any such petition
received by the Attorney General.''.

SEC. 3. NEW TERMINOLOGY FOR THOSE WITH MENTAL ILLNESS.

Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended in
each of subsections (d)(4) and (g)(4) by striking
``adjudicated as a mental defective'' and inserting
``adjudicated with mental illness, severe developmental
disability, or severe emotional instability''.

The Acting CHAIR. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall
be in order except those printed in part B of House Report 116-14. Each
such further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the
report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered read,
shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division
of the question.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Rice of South Carolina

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1
printed in part B of House Report 116-14.
Mr. RICE of South Carolina. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

[[Page H2285]]

The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 3, after line 23, insert the following:

SEC. _. REQUIREMENT THAT THE NICS SYSTEM SEARCH THE NATIONAL
DATA EXCHANGE DATABASE IN CONDUCTING BACKGROUND
CHECKS.

Section 922(t) of title 18, United States Code, a amended
by section 2 of this Act, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(8) The national instant criminal background check system
established under section 103 of the Brady Handgun Violence
Prevention Act shall search the database of the National Data
Exchange in conducting a background check pursuant to this
section.''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 145, the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Rice) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. RICE of South Carolina. Madam Chair, Dylann Roof is a monster.
Dylann Roof should never have been able to buy a gun. Dylann Roof
walked into a church in my hometown of Charleston, South Carolina, my
birthplace of Charleston, South Carolina, and he slaughtered nine
people in a Bible study. I can't imagine a more horrific crime. We all,
naturally, look for a response.
My friend, Mr. Clyburn, and the majority have noted that thousands of
people have wrongfully acquired guns because of the failure of our
background check system under what has become known as the Charleston
loophole.
The stated purpose of this underlying legislation, Mr. Clyburn's
legislation, is certainly noble: to close the Charleston loophole. The
only problem is that it does not carry out that purpose.
Too often here, we take up noble causes; we create legislation with
noble names; we pass this legislation to feel better; but the
legislation fails to solve the problem in the title.
After these horrific murders, the families of the victims sued the
Federal Government for allowing this monster to buy a gun.

{time} 1015

Charleston Federal District Court Judge Gergen wrote a lengthy
opinion in which he laid bare the Federal background check process and
its failures in this case, the case of Dylann Roof. His opinion is
available for anybody to read.
And in his 22-page opinion, he lays out the various structural flaws
in the background check system. Most notably, that the FBI maintains
four criminal databases. And under the background check system, the
background checker is allowed to check only three of those.
Why? I assume because those are the three that existed in the
nineties when the background check came into place.
There is a fourth one. It is more extensive and it is more detailed.
It is called N-DEx. In this file was all the information that Dylann
Roof's background checker needed to know to deny him the right to buy
the gun. This N-DEx system contained that information, and it is
maintained by the FBI. All they had to do was allow this background
checker to look at that. The FBI has admitted had they been able to do
that, this man--this monster--would never have been able to buy a gun.
My amendment would actually fix the Charleston loophole. The problem
is that I cannot support the underlying legislation. Why? Because it
creates an undue amount of time to be able to buy a gun.
And number two, the thing that bothers me the most, is that it shifts
a part of the burden to the American citizen trying to exercise his
Second Amendment rights. It requires him, in the event that you don't
hear back from the government, to file a petition with the Federal
court. I think this is an undue interference with his Second Amendment
right; therefore, I cannot accept this underlying legislation.
The Senate has indicated it will not be taken up in the Senate; and
the President has indicated that, if it passed, he would veto it.
Therefore, I plan to withdraw my amendment.
I plan to offer it separately as a new piece of legislation, which
will, in fact, close the Charleston loophole. It will allow the FBI
background checkers to search the most current N-DEx file that has all
this detailed information that was created after 9/11, well after the
background check law came into effect.
The FBI has admitted, it would have prevented Dylann Roof from buying
a gun and, I suspect, many of the other people who have carried out
these horrific shootings in recent years.
It will hopefully garner the bipartisan support necessary to actually
become law and fix the underlying problem.
Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from South Carolina?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Schneider

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in part B of House Report 116-14.
Mr. SCHNEIDER. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 3, after line 16, insert the following:

SEC. 3. REPORTS ON PETITIONS SUPPORTING FIREARM TRANSFERS NOT
IMMEDIATELY APPROVED BY NICS SYSTEM, THAT WERE
NOT RESPONDED TO IN A TIMELY MANNER.

The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall
make an annual report to the public on the number of
petitions received by the national instant criminal
background check system established under section 103 of the
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act that were submitted
pursuant to subclause (I) of section 922(t)(1)(B)(ii) of
title 18, United States Code, with respect to which a
determination was not made within the 10-day period referred
to in subclause (II) of such section.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 145, the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Schneider) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. SCHNEIDER. Madam Chair, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R.
1112, the Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019, and I applaud the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), my good friend, for his
leadership and enduring commitment to reducing gun violence and making
our communities safer. I also appreciate my friend from Texas, Sheila
Jackson Lee, for her leadership on this issue as well.
Madam Chair, it is unconscionable to think that convicted felons,
domestic abusers, and others who are prohibited by law from purchasing
a firearm could end up with these weapons anyway. Sadly, this is the
reality we currently live in due to the default proceed sales, also
known as the Charleston loophole.
I have introduced legislation on this problem in the past because we
must do everything we can to ensure firearms do not end up in the hands
of those who should not have them. This is why I am also a cosponsor of
Mr. Clyburn's Enhanced Background Checks Act.
The FBI should and, in fact, needs to know if a default proceeds sale
has taken place. Currently, this is not the case unless the FBI
eventually completes a background check, determines the purchaser
should be prohibited from owning a firearm, and subsequently contacts
the dealer.
We need more information throughout this process, and my amendment
would do just that: require the FBI to report on the number of
background checks that they are not able to complete within the
designated time period.
This information will help keep track of the FBI's ability to clear
background checks in a timely manner as well as give better
understanding of where there is still room for improvement. It will
also provide much-needed transparency to the default proceed process.
All who support commonsense solutions to reduce the gun violence
epidemic in this country should support this amendment and the
underlying legislation. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson Lee), my dear friend and a tireless champion and leader on the
efforts to reduce gun violence.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman very much, and I
thank him for his leadership on a very

[[Page H2286]]

important enhancement to the Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019,
which requires the FBI to report on the number of petitions it was not
able to make a determination on within the 10-day period.
I think Mr. Schneider knows that why we are here on the floor is to
save lives, to be able to protect innocent people from being subjected
to what the Emanuel Nine were: worshippers in a church with their
pastor, praying, as this country allows one to do.
It is my belief that the Schneider-Jackson Lee amendment should be
passed, because with this critical data and compliance reporting we can
learn more about legislative injustices like the one that enabled
Dylann Roof to process a handgun used to murder the nine innocent
persons at Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina, and
to remind everybody he had not been approved by the NICS reporting
system, and he was able to come back. This system allows us to know how
many have not been approved, to be able to address the question, to
have better policies dealing with protecting gun violence.
It is my privilege to join my colleague in supporting the Schneider-
Jackson Lee amendment.
Madam Chair, I close by saying that this tracks the Accidental
Firearms Transfer Reporting Act that I introduced in previous
Congresses in H.R. 3125 and H.R. 57.
I look forward to working with my colleague as we expand reasonable
gun safety legislation to protect our children, our families, and
Americans.
Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of this amendment which I am
proud to cosponsor with the gentleman from Illinois, Congressman Brad
Schneider.
I thank the Rules Committee for making the Schneider/Jackson Lee
Amendment in order and thank the Majority Whip for introducing the
underlying legislation, H.R. 1112, the ``Enhanced Background Checks Act
of 2019.''
H.R. 1112, the ``Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019,'' would
strengthen the background check procedures that firearms licensees or
dealers follow before selling or transferring a firearm.
As under current law, firearms dealers would be required to run a
background check on prospective buyers using the National Instant
Criminal Background Check System (``NICS'').
Over 90% of NICS checks are completed within 90 seconds.
If the NICS system has not returned an answer to the licensed
firearms dealer within ten days, the prospective firearms purchaser may
file a petition with the Attorney General for review.
Then, after another ten-day period has expired, the licensed firearms
dealer may sell or transfer the firearm to the prospective purchaser if
it has not received a response through the NICS system and the dealer
has no reason to believe that the purchaser is prohibited from
obtaining a firearm under federal, state, or local law.
Under this measure, licensed firearms dealers could not sell or
transfer under the ``default proceed'' provision until at least 20 days
have passed since the initial background check.
The Schneider/Jackson Lee Amendment strengthens the bill by requiring
the FBI to report on the number of petitions on which it was not able
to make a determination regarding the eligibility of the transferee to
possess a firearm within the 10-day period allotted by H.R. 1112.
I urge my colleagues to support the Schneider/Jackson Lee Amendment
because, with this critical data and compliance reporting, we can learn
more about legislative interstices like the one that enabled Dylan Roof
to possess the handgun used to murder 9 innocent persons at Mother
Emanuel A.M.E. Church in Charleston, South Carolina, as well as the
numerous other cases where a firearm was handed over to an unintended
and potentially dangerous recipient.
Making sure that policy makers have the most accurate, reliable, and
current data regarding background checks is one of the main reasons I
introduced the Accidental Firearms Transfers Reporting Act in the 114th
and 115th Congress (H.R. 3125 and H.R. 57 respectively).
Madam Chair, if anything, it is gun violence that is a national
emergency, and reducing gun violence should be one of Congress's
highest priorities.
The Schneider/Jackson Lee Amendment will help to do that.
I ask my colleagues to support the Schneider/Jackson Lee Amendment in
order.
Again, I thank Majority Whip Clyburn for introducing the underlying
legislation and Congressman Schneider for his work on this salutary
amendment.
I urge all Members to support the Schneider/Jackson Lee Amendment.

[Feb. 20, 2018]

List of Mass Shootings Since Columbine Massacre

(By Zayed Abdalla)

Below is a list of all mass shootings in the United States
which occurred after the Columbine High School Massacre.
Dates and death tolls (excluding the shooter) are included.
Although many other mass shootings have occurred, for the
sake of time and physical space, only shootings involving the
death of five or more people have been included in this
article.
1. Columbine High School Shooting, Littleton, Colorado--
April 1999: 13 Dead
2. Atlanta Shootings, Atlanta, Georgia--July 1999: 12 Dead
3. Wedgwood Baptist Church shooting, Fort Worth, Texas--
September 1999: 7 Dead
4. Xerox Killings, Honolulu, Hawaii--November 1999: 7 Dead
5. Tampa Hotel Shootings, Tampa, Florida--December 1999: 5
Dead
6. Wakefield Massacre, Wakefield, Massachusetts--December
2000: 7 Dead
7. Lockheed Martin Shooting, Median, Mississippi--July
2003: 6 Dead
8. Living Church of God Shooting, Brookfield, Wisconsin--
March 2005: 7 Dead
9. Red Lake High School, Red Lake Indian Reservation,
Minnesota--March 2005: 9 Dead
10. Goleta Postal Shootings, Goleta, California--January
2006: 7 Dead
11. Capitol Hill Massacre, Seattle Washington--March 2006:
6 Dead
12. West Nickel Mines Amish School, Nickel Mines,
Pennsylvania--October 2006: 5 Dead
13. Tolley Square Shooting, Salt Lake City, Utah--February
2007: 5 Dead
14. Virginia Tech University, Blacksburg, Virginia--April
2007: 32 Dead
15. Crandon Shooting, Crandon Wisconsin--October 2007: 6
Dead
16. Westroads Mall Shooting, Omaha Nebraska--December 2007:
8 Dead
17. Kirkwood City Council Shooting, Kirkwood, Missouri--
February 2008: 6 Dead
18. Northern Illinois University, Dekalb, Illinois--
February 2008: 5 Dead
19. Atlantis Plastics Shooting, Henderson Kentucky--June
2008: 5 Dead
20. Carthage Nursing Home Shooting--Carthage, North
Carolina--March 2009: 8 Dead
21. Geneva County Massacre, Geneva and Samson, Alabama--
March 2009: 10 Dead
22. Binghampton Shootings, Binghampton--April 2009: 13 Dead
23. Fort Hood Shooting, Fort Hood, Texas--November 2009: 13
Dead
24. Hartford Beer Distributor Shooting, Manchester,
Connecticut--August 2010: 8 Dead
25. Tucson Shooting, Tucson, Arizona--January 2011: 6 Dead
26. Seal Beach Shooting, Seal Beach, California--October
2011: 8 Dead
27. Oikos University, Oakland, California--April 2012: 7
Dead
28. Seattle Cafe Shooting, Seattle, Washington--May 2012: 5
Dead
29. Aurora Shooting, Aurora, Colorado--July 2012: 12 Dead
30. Sikh Temple Shooting, Oak Creek, Wisconsin--August
2012: 6 Dead
31. Accent Signage Systems Shooting, Minneapolis,
Minnesota--September 2012: 6 Dead
32. Sandy Hook Elementary School, Newtown, Connecticut--
December 2012: 27 Dead
33. Santa Monica College, Santa Monica, California--June
2013: 5 Dead
34. Hialeah Shooting, Hialeah, Florida--July 2013: 6 Dead
35. Washington Navy Yard Shooting, Washington D.C.--
September 2013: 12 Dead
36. University of California Santa Barbara, Isla Vista,
California--May 2014: 6
Dead
37. Marysville Pilchuck High School, Marysville,
Washington--October 2014: 4 Dead
38. Charleston Church Shooting, Charleston, South
Carolina--June 2015: 9 Dead
39. Chattanooga Military Recruitment Center, Chattanooga
Tennessee--July 2015: 5 Dead
40. Umpqua Community College, Roseburg, Oregon--October
2015: 9 Dead
41. San Bernardino Attack, San Bernardino, California--
December 2015: 14 Dead
42. Kalamazoo Shooting Spree, Kalamazoo County, Michigan--
February 2016: 6 Dead
43. Orlando Night-club Shooting, Orlando, Florida--June
2016: 49 Dead
44. Dallas Police Shooting, Dallas Texas--July 2016: 5 Dead
45. Cascade Mall Shooting, Burlington, Washington--
September 2016: 5 Dead
46. Fort Lauderdale Airport Shooting, Fort Lauderdale,
Florida--January 2017: 5 Dead
47. Las Vegas Shooting, Las Vegas, Nevada--October 2017: 58
Dead
48. Sutherland Springs Church, Sutherland Springs, Texas--
November 2017: 26 Dead
49. Rancho Tehama Shooting, Rancho Tehama, California--
November 2017: 5 Dead
50. Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, Parkland,
Florida--February 2018: 17 Dead

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Nadler), chairman of the committee.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I support this amendment, which requires the FBI to report on the
number

[[Page H2287]]

of petitions it was not able to resolve with a determination within 10
days.
We know that providing more time for checks to be completed in the
instances that more time is needed will help prevent guns from getting
into the hands of those who are ineligible under current law from
purchasing and possessing the guns.
The goal of this bill is to do just that, and to allow individuals
whose checks take longer than 10 days to complete the opportunity to
petition for their case to be reviewed within another 10-day period.
Madam Chair, the report required by this amendment will help us
oversee the implementation of this new process and the changes
instituted by this law. I urge my colleagues to support this salutary
amendment.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. SCHNEIDER. Madam Chair, does the gentleman from Georgia have any
speakers on this issue?
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. To the good gentleman, I do not.
Mr. SCHNEIDER. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schneider).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Levin of Michigan

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in part B of House Report 116-14.
Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 3, after line 16, insert the following:

SEC. 3. GAO REPORTS.

Within 90 days after the end of each of the 1-year, 3-year,
and 5-year periods that begin with the effective date of this
Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall
prepare and submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary
of the Senate a written report analyzing the extent to which,
during the respective period, paragraphs (1)(B)(ii) and (7)
of section 922(t) of title 18, United States Code, have
prevented firearms from being transferred to prohibited
persons, which report shall include but not be limited to the
following--
(1) an assessment of the overall implementation of such
subsections, including a description of the challenges faced
in implementing such paragraphs; and
(2) an aggregate description of firearm purchase delays and
denials, and an aggregate analysis of the petitions submitted
pursuant to such paragraph (1)(B)(ii).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 145, the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Madam Chairwoman, I am proud to cosponsor the
Enhanced Background Checks Act, H.R. 1112, and I am also proud today to
present an amendment that will make sure we can track and learn from
the good that this bill will accomplish once it becomes law.
In 2017, 39,773 Americans died from gun violence. This is a public
health epidemic.
Under current law, if a background check is not completed within 3
business days, a federally licensed firearm dealer may move forward
with a firearms transfer or sale.
The devastating reality is that many horrific acts of gun violence,
including the massacre of the Emanuel Methodist Church in Charleston,
South Carolina, which ended nine lives and left several people wounded,
could have been avoided.
Today, we will vote to close the loophole that allowed for that
tragedy by closing what has become known as the Charleston loophole.
The Enhanced Background Checks Act will provide the background check
system with additional time to make a final determination on a
potential firearm purchaser before a licensed dealer can transfer a
gun.
We have an obligation to the American people and to the victims of
the shooter at the AME church to pass the bill before us today, and I
am proud to be part of this effort to protect our communities from gun
violence.
My amendment to H.R. 1112 will require the Government Accountability
Office to submit a report to Congress 1 year, 3 years, and 5 years
following the implementation of this law. These reports will analyze
the extent to which the changes made by this law will prevent firearms
from being transferred to prohibited persons.
I am proud that this amendment has broad support from all
stakeholders that have been involved in making this bill a reality.
We must strive for effective, evidence-based policies that promote
public health and protect our communities. My amendment will cost us
nothing, but it will help build the evidence base around the
effectiveness of good gun violence prevention policies like this one.
This amendment is all the more important, given the regrettable lack
of Federal funding for gun violence research. My amendment will finally
help us demonstrate with data that gun violence prevention measures
like the one before us today will prevent firearms from ending up in
the hands of people who should not have them.
I came to Washington because the people of southern Macomb and
southeastern Oakland Counties sent me here on a mission, and that
mission includes protecting our communities from senseless gun
violence.
I stand today in solidarity with the courageous people of Michigan's
Ninth Congressional District's Moms Demand Action and Students Demand
Action.
We have a responsibility as Members of Congress and as human beings
not just to talk about the horrors of gun violence, but to do
everything in our powers to end it. Today, we will take the critically
necessary step to do just that.
I would like to thank Congressman Jim Clyburn, Peter King, and Joe
Cunningham for their leadership to ensure that we close the Charleston
loophole. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1112 and support this
amendment.
Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Nadler), the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

{time} 1030

Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I support this amendment to require the GAO to submit a report to the
relevant congressional committees analyzing the extent to which the
additions required by this bill prevent firearms from being transferred
to prohibited persons.
It will be important for us to get information about the
implementation of the law and its impact on so-called default proceed
transactions. The amendment also requires that the GAO report its
findings after 90 days and again after 1 year, 3 years, and 5 years.
I think it is always a good idea to actually track the effect of new
legislation and see how effective it is.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this
amendment, and I commend the sponsor for doing so.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Porter

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in part B of House Report 116-14.

[[Page H2288]]

Ms. PORTER. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 3, after line 23, insert the following:

SEC. _. REPORT TO THE CONGRESS.

Within 150 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Attorney General, in consultation with the National
Resource Center on Domestic Violence and Firearms, shall
submit to the Congress a report analyzing the effect, if any,
of this Act on the safety of victims of domestic violence,
domestic abuse, dating partner violence, sexual assault, and
stalking, and whether any further amendments to the
background check process, including amendments to the
conditions that must be met under this Act for a firearm to
be transferred when the system has not notified the licensee
that such transfer would not violate subsection (g) or (n) of
section 922 of title 18, United States Code, would likely
result in a reduction in the risk of death or great bodily
harm to victims of domestic violence, domestic abuse, dating
partner violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 145, the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Porter) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. PORTER. Madam Chair, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Madam Chair, when we discuss the epidemic of gun violence in our
country, we must confront the issues of domestic violence, domestic
abuse, dating partner violence, sexual assault, and stalking.
According to the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic
Violence, firearms pose a significant danger to victims of domestic
violence, and this is true no matter who owns the firearm. Research
shows that a male abuser's access to a firearm increases the risk of
intimate partner femicide fivefold and does not support the contention
that firearm possession is a protective factor for the victim.
The fact is, prohibited buyers who obtain a firearm through the
Charleston loophole are disproportionately likely to be prohibited
because of domestic violence. Indeed, in 2017, 23 percent of cases
where a gun was transferred to a prohibited purchaser through a default
proceed sale involved a person prohibited due to a conviction for
domestic violence, or prohibited due to a domestic violence restraining
order.
Denials related to domestic violence often require more investigation
than denials based on other factors.
I am offering this amendment so that this bill's background check
process, before it goes into effect, Congress can hear from experts in
the Justice Department and at the National Resource Center on Domestic
Violence and Firearms on whether any changes could be made to better
protect victims of domestic violence.
This amendment requires the study on domestic violence to be
completed within 150 days. If the Van Drew amendment passes, this bill
will have an effective date of 210 days after enactment.
If the study finds that further changes would be advisable to better
protect domestic violence victims, Congress will have enough time to
make those changes.
Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms.
Moore).
Ms. MOORE. Madam Chair, let me thank the gentlewoman for offering
this amendment, along with our other colleagues, to H.R. 1112 that
would simply require the Department of Justice to release a report
analyzing the effect of this bill's provisions on the safety of the
victims of domestic violence, domestic abuse, dating partner violence,
sexual assault, and stalking.
Madam Chairwoman, I am here on the floor today with the hopes that my
colleagues will listen to the 10 million men, women, and children who
experience domestic violence each year. Domestic violence is a horrible
scourge, and the presence or possession of a gun only worsens these
tragedies.
You heard my colleague, Representative Porter, say that women are
five times more likely to die or be killed in a domestic violence
situation if a gun is owned, which is one of the reasons, Madam Chair,
I have introduced legislation to help incentivize States to adopt laws
that ensure that we do everything to take guns from those with a court
restraining order or other protective order.
I hope, Madam Chair, that my colleagues will listen to the one in
three women and one in four men who have been victims of intimate
partner violence. I sure hope that my colleagues will listen to me as
one of the 4.5 million women who have experienced gun violence
firsthand.
There is much discussion in these Chambers about a national
emergency. Gun violence and domestic violence are a national emergency,
and that is why we have offered this amendment so that our laws
actually reflect the realities.
The data collected will be critical to inform Congress about ways to
prevent needless tragedies in our country, and to help us evolve in a
way that will more accurately protect our constituents.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. PORTER. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Porter).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Van Drew

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5
printed in part B of House Report 116-14.
Mr. VAN DREW. Madam Chairwoman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 3, line 16, strike the close quotation marks and the
following period.
Page 3, after line 16, insert the following:
``(8)(A) If, after 3 business days have elapsed since the
licensee initially contacted the system about a firearm
transaction, the system notifies the licensee that the
receipt of a firearm by such other person would not violate
subsection (g) or (n), the licensee may continue to rely on
that notification for the longer of--
``(i) an additional 25 calendar days after the licensee
receives the notification; or
``(ii) 30 calendar days after the date of the initial
contact.
``(B) If such other person has met the requirements of
paragraph (1)(B)(ii) before the system destroys the records
related to the firearm transaction, the licensee may continue
to rely on such other person having met the requirements for
an additional 25 calendar days after the date such other
person first met the requirements.''.
Page 3, after line 23, insert the following:

SEC. _. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take
effect 210 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 145, the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Van Drew) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. VAN DREW. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My amendment will ensure that from the date a firearm purchase is
legally authorized under the bill, the firearm purchaser has 25
calendar days to pick up their gun, regardless of how much time has
elapsed since the background check was first initiated.
This would prevent a situation under the bill as it is written that,
although rare, would still be possible, where the maximum allowable
number of business days, 20 business days, that a purchaser would have
to wait for an approval could actually run longer, hypothetically, than
the 30 days.
That would be problematic because under a current ATF, Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives regulation, a gun cannot be
transferred after 30 days once a background check begins.
Where more than 30 calendar days have passed since the licensee first
contacted NICS, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System,
the licensee must initiate a new NICS check prior to transferring the
firearm. My amendment would prevent an unnecessary background check do-
over.
For those who get approved by the FBI after 3 business days, my
amendment would essentially nullify the 30

[[Page H2289]]

days ATF regulation, allowing prospective firearm owners the peace of
mind that they do deserve.
After this bill went through the Judiciary Committee, the point was
raised that an existing ATF regulation, if left unchanged, could result
in a situation where even after a background check was approved or a
petition process was followed, the lawful gun buyer would still not be
able to get the gun without doing a second background check because too
much time had elapsed since the first background check began.
This is clearly not the intent of the bill, and while I believe that
ATF would amend the regulation if this bill is passed, this amendment
removes all doubt. Anyone who is legally authorized to obtain a firearm
under the new process will have ample time, 25 days, to return to the
dealer and retrieve the gun.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Chair, I appreciate the gentleman here
on this. It is good to fix this. But the only problem is, it doesn't
fix it--I think that is the problem that we are looking at--as written.
As we discussed earlier, your amendment claims to prevent this endless
loop, but it fails to do so.
Per ATF regulation, a NICS check is only valid for 30 calendar days
from when the NICS is initially contacted. This language does not
extend the timeframe in the event of a delayed response, nor does it
direct the attorney general to do so.
So if the purchaser completes the three-step process under H.R. 1112,
then attempts to take possession of the firearm on calendar day 31, ATF
regulations would suggest it is too late. The NICS check has expired,
and as a result, the federally licensed firearms dealer would need to
conduct a new NICS check while restarting the process.
Madam Chair, I did offer an amendment to extend the validity of the
NICS check to 60 days to cure this deficiency, however, the Democrats
refused to make my amendment in order. For that reason, I am glad that
the gentleman is trying to fix this, which is where it should be, but
it just doesn't fix it.
So we are again searching for an amendment and solution to a problem
that could have been fixed, but this amendment does not fix it. I am
glad the gentleman brought the amendment and in the plain reading of
the statute and the plain reading of this amendment, this is a great
attempt. It just falls short.
For that reason, I would urge my colleagues to vote against this
amendment because it does not actually fix the problem we outlined
earlier.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VAN DREW. Madam Chairwoman, I would just again emphasize that
this is 25 days after the approval, and also that law supersedes
regulation. There is no question that that 25 days would be in place
and that would give more than a sufficient amount of time, in fact, a
lenient amount of time, just to ensure that there aren't any problems
here.
Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Nadler), the chairman, to speak in favor of this amendment.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in support of this amendment, and this completely takes care
of Mr. Collins' concern, whether he realizes it or not. Because this
says that the transfer can take place for 25 days after the transfer
becomes legally permissible.
In other words, under the longest timeframe, the background check
doesn't come back within 10 days. The purchaser waits a few days, and
then petitions the attorney general. It takes another 10 days. Then it
becomes legally permissible.
This says the transfer can take place for 25 days after that. So
there is no way that this doesn't take care of the problem that Mr.
Collins raised, and then some.
The current procedures in place do not take into account the longer
waiting period in the petition process that H.R. 1112 requires. This
amendment more than takes care of that. It is a salutary amendment. It
makes the system work, and I can't understand anybody, whether they
support the bill or not, who wouldn't want to support this, so I
support the amendment.
Mr. VAN DREW. Madam Chair, I thank the chairman, and just as a couple
of other points, on a personal level, I have always been a supporter of
Second Amendment rights and continue to be. The purpose of this
amendment is to, obviously, do so, support Second Amendment rights.

{time} 1045

Secondly, I know that there is language in another part of the bill
that many people have asked me about which is not something that I am
amending or had to do with, but I know that there is a commitment from
leadership that that language is going to be completely redone and that
language will be totally appropriate and actually will be a major
improvement.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Chair, I appreciate my chairman, but I
disagree, because there is still the 30-day limitation. The 30-day
limitation is not done here, and so there is and could be a problem if
it was done. I still have my time, and there is no time remaining.
The issue here is that if it is approved after the 30 days, then this
bill does not fix it. The easy fix here was an amendment we offered
that simply extended it for 60 days. That is your fix. Instead, we go
through this where there can be, as all good things lawyerly, we can
have lawyerly disagreements. I think in the end, when you actually go
back and look at this, you will see that there is an interpretation
problem here. The 30 days still exists.
Why could we have not just simply extended the NICS date for 60 days
instead of 30 days instead of going through this exercise of legal
interpretation?
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VAN DREW. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my
time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Objection.
The Acting CHAIR. Objection is heard.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Van Drew).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey
will be postponed.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings now
will resume on those amendments printed in part B of House Report 116-
14 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Schneider of Illinois.
Amendment No. 5 by Mr. Van Drew of New Jersey.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Schneider

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Schneider) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 282,
noes 144, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 100]

AYES--282

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Arrington
Axne
Bacon
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bost
Boyle, Brendan F.

[[Page H2290]]

Brindisi
Brooks (IN)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Budd
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Cummings
Cunningham
Curtis
Davids (KS)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Davis, Rodney
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Finkenauer
Fitzpatrick
Fletcher
Flores
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx (NC)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallagher
Gallego
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Gohmert
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (OH)
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Graves (LA)
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Guthrie
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hastings
Hayes
Heck
Herrera Beutler
Higgins (NY)
Hill (CA)
Himes
Hollingsworth
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hudson
Huffman
Huizenga
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Joyce (OH)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Mast
Matsui
McAdams
McBath
McClintock
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McHenry
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Murphy
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Newhouse
Norcross
Norton
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Posey
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Rooney (FL)
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sablan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Shimkus
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Stevens
Stivers
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Turner
Underwood
Upton
Van Drew
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wagner
Walden
Walorski
Waltz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wenstrup
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Woodall
Yarmuth
Yoho

NOES--144

Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Armstrong
Babin
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Brady
Brooks (AL)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burchett
Burgess
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Cole
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Crawford
Crenshaw
Davidson (OH)
DesJarlais
Duffy
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Estes
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gooden
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Hagedorn
Harris
Hartzler
Hern, Kevin
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Holding
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (PA)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marshall
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McKinley
Meadows
Meuser
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reschenthaler
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose, John W.
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smucker
Spano
Steube
Stewart
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Walberg
Walker
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Wright
Young
Zeldin

NOT VOTING--11

Abraham
Byrne
Frankel
Garamendi
Gonzalez-Colon (PR)
Katko
Marchant
Plaskett
Radewagen
San Nicolas
Soto

{time} 1115

Messrs. BALDERSON, MOOLENAAR, MITCHELL, JOYCE of Pennsylvania, Mrs.
HARTZLER, and Mr. RUTHERFORD changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. POSEY, Mrs. WALORSKI, Messrs. WOODALL, SHIMKUS, COLLINS of New
York, McHENRY, and YOHO changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Van Drew

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Van Drew) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a
2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 234,
noes 193, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 101]

AYES--234

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Amash
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brindisi
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Cummings
Cunningham
Davids (KS)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Finkenauer
Fitzpatrick
Fletcher
Foster
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hastings
Hayes
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Hill (CA)
Himes
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McAdams
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Murphy
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
Norton
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sablan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stevens
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Van Drew
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Yarmuth

NOES--193

[[Page H2291]]

Gaetz
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (OH)
Gooden
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Hartzler
Hern, Kevin
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meadows
Meuser
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Peterson
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rooney (FL)
Rose, John W.
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smucker
Spano
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Waltz
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Yoho
Young
Zeldin

NOT VOTING--10

Abraham
Frankel
Garamendi
Gonzalez-Colon (PR)
Katko
Plaskett
Radewagen
San Nicolas
Soto
Wilson (FL)

{time} 1126

Mr. RICE of South Carolina changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. LEE of California changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR. There being no further amendments, under the rule,
the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Ms.
Clark of Massachusetts) having assumed the chair, Ms. Judy Chu of
California, Acting Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under
consideration the bill (H.R. 1112) to amend chapter 44 of title 18,
United States Code, to strengthen the background check procedures to be
followed before a Federal firearms licensee may transfer a firearm to a
person who is not such a licensee, and, pursuant to House Resolution
145, she reported the bill, as amended by that resolution, back to the
House with sundry further amendments adopted in the Committee of the
Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any further amendment reported from
the Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
Mrs. LESKO. I am.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mrs. Lesko moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1112 to the
Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report the
same to the House forthwith with the following amendment:
Page 1, line 13, insert ``(I)'' after ``(ii)'';
Page 1, line 17, strike ``(I)'' and insert ``(aa)''.
Page 2, line 9, strike ``(aa)'' and insert ``(AA)''.
Page 2, line 14, strike ``(bb)'' and insert ``(BB)''.
Page 2, line 21, strike ``(II)'' and insert ``(bb)''.
Page 3, line 1, insert ``or'' after the semicolon.
Page 3, strike line 2 and insert the following:
``(II) in the case that the transferee is a victim of a
crime of domestic violence, 3 business days (meaning days on
which State offices are open) have elapsed since the licensee
contacted the system. In this subclause, the term `crime of
domestic violence' means an offense that has, as an element,
the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force,
or the threatened use of a deadly weapon, committed by a
current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim,
by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by
a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the
victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, or by a person
similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the
victim; and''; and
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Arizona is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, this motion to recommit will not kill the
bill or send it back to committee, to be clear. If adopted, the bill
will immediately proceed to final passage as amended.
My Democratic colleagues are set to pass this bill despite the fact
that the ACLU opposes it.
Let me repeat that. The ACLU opposes H.R. 1112 because it is so
sweeping and improperly perpetrates unfounded assumptions that people
with mental disabilities should be considered dangerous and are prone
to violence without any meaningful due process.
As most of you know, I am a survivor of domestic violence, and that
is why this motion to recommit is so personally important to me. This
motion to recommit, in contrast, is narrowly tailored. It would simply
allow victims of domestic violence who go through a NICS check to
receive their firearms in 3 days, which is the status quo, if NICS has
not responded with a denial or approval in 3 business days--again, the
status quo.
Do we really want to tell victims of domestic violence they have to
wait up to 20 business days, which is under this bill, before they are
allowed to adequately defend themselves?
Do we really want to tell them: Sorry. I know you are purchasing a
firearm to protect yourself, but you have to wait 20 business days?
Should we tell them: Hopefully you can hide from your abuser for the
next month?
The Judiciary Committee recently heard testimony from a young woman
who was raped on her college campus. She did not have a gun on campus
because the State did not allow her to carry a gun in order to defend
herself. This is a clear example of how law-abiding citizens, not
criminals, follow the law and how this law-abiding young woman was
harmed by gun control laws.
Another specific example related to this bill of a well-intentioned
law gone wrong is Carol Bowne, a New Jersey woman stabbed to death
while waiting to be approved for her firearm application. She already
had an order of protection from the courts, but that wasn't enough for
her. She needed more than just that piece of paper. She needed to
protect herself, so she went and tried to get a gun to defend herself,
but because of the waiting period, she was killed.
Let me repeat that. Carol Bowne had an order of protection. She
attempted to purchase a firearm, and she was tragically murdered by her
abuser while waiting to be approved.
H.R. 1112 will make the realities of Carol's story happen across the
country, putting millions of women and law-abiding citizens in danger.
Women who seek avenues of protection will be forced to wait almost a
month, like Carol.
How many women will potentially suffer like Carol? And what will the
Democrats say: Sorry; we hope you can hide from your abuser for a
month?
Madam Speaker, that would be foolish as well as heartless. It would
be an infringement of Second Amendment rights for someone who needs
them the most.
Given the insidious flaws in this bill, do we really want to burden
law-abiding victims by placing them in a never-ending cycle of
background checks? Of course not.
This motion to recommit is a commonsense measure. It would ensure
that domestic violence victims, many of whom live in fear, can receive
the protection they need and deserve.
Vote for this motion to recommit and you vote to protect domestic
violence victims. Vote against the motion to recommit and you are
telling victims who live in fear: Sorry; we won't help you.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this motion to
recommit, and I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H2292]]

Mrs. DINGELL. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Michigan is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mrs. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, the underlying bill, H.R. 1112, is a
critical and carefully crafted bill to address the Charleston loophole.
We have discussed it here today, but I will repeat, the very name
``Charleston loophole'' is a grim reminder of the deficiency in current
law that allows killers to get guns even if a firearms background check
has not been completed. This is a dangerous flaw that we can address
with a minor change to the system.
When a background check cannot be completed within a 3-day period, it
is important that the FBI work to resolve the unanswered questions
presented, because these are the very cases that present the most
danger.
Unfortunately, we have seen many default proceeds go forward in
domestic violence cases, allowing an abuser to obtain a firearm even
when he or she is prohibited from owning one. The statistics back that
up.
In 2013 and 2014, a plurality of default proceed transfers to
prohibit a person were related to domestic violence. In that same
period, 30 percent of denials due to convictions for misdemeanor
domestic violence were issued after the abuser took possession of the
gun.
My heart goes out to my colleague, Mrs. Lesko, because she should
never have suffered from domestic violence. Unfortunately, we are
colleagues that both know it.
I have spent more time thinking about how you keep guns out of the
hands of abusers, probably, than anybody in this Chamber. I know better
than most the dangers they pose.
It is not easy for me to talk about it this week, but more than
once--and I think of the abuser. I will be honest on this floor. My
father was mentally ill. I had to hide in that closet with my siblings
wondering if we would live or die. One night, I kept my father from
killing my mother. He shouldn't have had a gun.
This is what I remember as a child. My mother went out and bought a
gun, and then all of us were scared to death about her gun and my
father's gun. We had two guns to worry about.
No child, no woman, no man should ever have to go through that.

The additional time provided by H.R. 1112 will help us stop more
massacres such as the one in Charleston, and may it prevent another
child or family going through what I did as a child.
These amendments made by this motion would undermine the lifesaving
improvements to current law that this bill will initiate. I oppose this
motion with every bit of my heart and soul and urge my colleagues to do
the same.
Madam Speaker, I yield my remaining time to the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the distinguished whip.
Mr. CLYBURN. Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Michigan has 1 minute
remaining.
Mr. CLYBURN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman so much for
yielding the time.
Madam Speaker, let me just take this 1 minute to welcome to this
Capitol Ms. Jennifer, Ms. Malana, and Ms. Eliana Pinckney, the widow
and two surviving daughters of Reverend Clementa Pinckney.
They hid under his desk in the basement of Emanuel AME Church while a
demented gentleman who wanted to start a race war, was welcomed into
their Bible study--at the end of that hour, Reverend Clementa asked all
of the worshippers to bow their heads and close their eyes as he prayed
for what had occurred that evening. While their heads were bowed and
their eyes closed, Dylann Roof opened his, after having been welcomed
into their midst, and he slaughtered Reverend Pinckney and his eight
worshippers.
Why? Because he was allowed to get this gun when he was not eligible
to get one. They found out on the fifth day that he was ineligible but,
by that point, it was too late. As a result, those poor souls lost
their lives.
Let's give the FBI, let's give the authorities, enough time to do
their jobs. We will save lives and we will be better off for it.
Mrs. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 5-
minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 5-minute
votes on:
Passage of the bill, if ordered; and
Agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 194,
nays 232, not voting 5, as follows:

[Roll No. 102]

YEAS--194

Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Bost
Brady
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson (OH)
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Estes
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx (NC)
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (OH)
Gooden
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Hartzler
Hern, Kevin
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marshall
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meadows
Meuser
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Peterson
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rooney (FL)
Rose, John W.
Rouzer
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spano
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Van Drew
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Waltz
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Yoho
Young
Zeldin

NAYS--232

[[Page H2293]]

McAdams
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Murphy
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roy
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stevens
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--5

Abraham
Frankel
Garamendi
Katko
Soto

{time} 1152

So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228,
nays 198, not voting 6, as follows:

[Roll No. 103]

YEAS--228

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Cummings
Cunningham
Davids (KS)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Finkenauer
Fitzpatrick
Fletcher
Foster
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hastings
Hayes
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Hill (CA)
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
King (NY)
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Murphy
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stevens
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Van Drew
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NAYS--198

Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Bost
Brady
Brindisi
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson (OH)
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Estes
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx (NC)
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Golden
Gonzalez (OH)
Gooden
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Hartzler
Hern, Kevin
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Holding
Hollingsworth
Horn, Kendra S.
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kind
King (IA)
Kinzinger
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McAdams
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meadows
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Peterson
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rooney (FL)
Rose, John W.
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smucker
Spano
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Torres Small (NM)
Turner
Upton
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Waltz
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Yoho
Young
Zeldin

NOT VOTING--6

Abraham
Frankel
Garamendi
Katko
Meuser
Soto

{time} 1200

Mr. TURNER changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. MEUSER. Madam Speaker, I was present, did insert card and voted
No on final passage on Enhanced Background Checks Act, but my vote was
not recorded.

personal explanation

Mr. SOTO. Madam Speaker, I apologize for not being present to vote. I
had a family health emergency in Florida to attend. Had I been present,
I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 100, ``yea'' on rollcall No.
101, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 102, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 103.

____________________