Transcripts For CSPAN House Judiciary Committee On Gun Violence Prevention 20240714

[indistinct conversations] [chatter] as i said, we would like to move on to the next bill. That people leave and come up these do so quietly. You. Eople coming in, thank pursuant to notice by h. R. 12 0 6, the protection order act of 2019. The clerk will report the bill. 1236 to support state, tribal and local efforts to remove access of firearms from individuals who are in danger to themselves and others pursuant to court orders for this purpose. Without objection. I will begin by recognizing myself for an opening statement. Rep. Nadler last month the country was rocked by news of Mass Shootings on two successive days in el paso, texas, where 22 people were killed and 26 wounded, and in dayton ohio nine people were killed and 27 others injured. A few weeks later, a gunman in odessa, texas took other peoples lives. 53 people were killed in total in Mass Shootings in august alone. Individual to commemorate the victims in dayton, the governor speech was drawn out by calls to do something. Today, we will. The committee has over the past two important gun safety measures, the bipartisan background checks act, and the enhanced background checks act, both of which passed the house in february, but are currently being blocked in the senate by the republican majority. By that will not stop this committee. Today we consider three more measures to help prevent tragic gun violence. I want to emphasize however the are not taking official action simply to respond to Mass Shootings. This has been our motivation with respect to the gun safety built, the committee has earned it considered, we are acting because of the urgent need to respond to the daily total of gun violence in our communities whether Mass Shootings or not, whether or not they made national headlines. There is no single bill that will address all these issues. That is where we are considering three additional bills today. More than 35,000 americans lose their lives because of guns every year. On average, america 34 people are murdered with a firearm. Gun violence of this magnitude is a distinctly american problem. From country to country, the comparison is shocking. For example, in. 2011, the u. K. Had 146 deaths to gun violence. Portugal, 142, japan, just 30. The United States, more than 35,000. Even when you adjust for population differences, americans are disproportionately killed by gun violence. In recent study in the american journal of medicine found that compared to 22 other highincome countries, the murder rate in the United States is 25 times higher due to gun violence. The president has tried to pin blame on Mental Illness, but we know, the United States does not have the rate of Mental Illness that is 25 times higher than the rest of the world. That is clearly not the source of our gun violence crisis. We must approach this issue with the range of solutions and with a sense of urgency, and we cannot use they can of Mental Illness as an excuse to do nothing real, that is why we are taking action today. The first gun safety bill will consider is h. R. 1236, the extremist protection order act of 2019, which provides funding to a net protection statutes that empower Law Enforcement and families to petition courts to intervene when individuals in crisis pose a danger to themselves and others. This bill encourages states and localities to take steps to prevent gun violence tragedies in their communities, while at the same time protecting the Due Process Rights of those individuals in crisis. Under the bill, states and localities are encouraged to up life for funding removinge to pass laws firearms from a person in crisis and preventing them from purchasing firearms only after making a finding that there is personce that the poses a significant danger of injured himself, herself, or others. The judge considering the petition from Law Enforcement and family members. Would authorize the removal of firearms for up to 30 days. The court must afford the firearm owner of full hearing showing the person his Due Process Rights to contest the disposition. H. R. 1236 strikes a balance between protecting the rights of the gun owner and ensuring community safety. He amendment i will offer shortly will include amendments to h. R 736 introduced by our colleague from georgia, ms. Macbeth. With Law Enforcement, family members and the court. The inclusion of this federal mechanism is an explicit acknowledgment by gun violence and Mass Shootings unfortunately have no bounds. Every jurisdiction in this country have been touched by gun violence. The federal provision ensures consistent access to courts and enables continuity of enforcement across state lines. Federal courts have long been bastions of due process, and the protections included in the protecterpo provisions s dueders respondent process rights. Weigh whether its right is imminent and the period is limited to 14 days, during which the court will determine after a hearing including participation by the respondent that the order is appropriate. Taking together, the grand 1236, and theh. R. Federal Provisions Incorporated from h. R. 3076, provide a sensible means by which an individual exhibits dangerous behavior can be prevented from possessing firearms. According to one study, over 50 of mass shooters exhibited warning signs before the shooting. This authorizes individuals who have serious concerns that someone they know possesses an extreme risk to take the action needed to save lives and prevent suicide. 17 states and the district of columbia have past Protection Laws which have proven to be effective. In california, one study found that protection orders were issued under that state law in 21 incidences where there was concern of a mass casualty event. After connecticut connected an extreme Risk Protection order law, the state experienced a 14 reduction in its firearm suicide rate. In indiana, the number of in the 10eclined 7. 5 years after they enacted its extreme Risk Protection order law. Bottom line is that these laws save lives. We have witnessed their effectiveness in state after state. So let us continue to take the reasonable and measured steps that the American People demand. This week, it was reported that nearly 90 of americans support extreme risk Protection Laws. Today, this committee has the opportunity to build on a measures the house has already 8, thencluding h. R. Bipartisan background check act of 2019 which also received numerous support. I thank miss macbeth for championing this effort and for championing the critical provisions that constitute the bill, and i urge all my colleagues to support h. R. 1236 as it will be amended. I now recognize the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, gentleman from georgia, mr. Collins for his Opening Statements. Rep. Collins , mr. Nadler, thank you for holding this markup today. Like you, i am concerned about addressing this important issue. The scourge of gun violence plaguing our communities. I stand ready to work with you on sensible solutions to prevent these atrocities. However, i am not willing to support legislation that will not do anything to make it safer and simultaneously infringes on the rights guaranteed by our constitution. Unfortunately, all three bills considered today do just that. H. R. 1236 the extreme protection order act of 2019, what may seem, says is far too flawed to be worthy of this committees support. In an interview a few months ago, one of the statements given by the chairman, you said this ,o one of your hometown papers my reason for being in politics was civil rights, civil liberties, and due process, and that has never changed. I am not sure what has changed, but the bill today has serious due process problems. It allows a confiscation of a firearm without notice or without an opportunity to be heard. Reasonable cause is not even probable cause. It certainly is less than beer and convincing evidence. Do we really wants to surrender americas Constitutional Rights to such a low standard without giving the citizens notice or opportunity to be heard . What other rights are we living to sacrifice in this manner . The ex parte proceeding standards are not the only flaw in this bill. The court must find a preponderance of evidence that poses avidual danger to himself or others. If my colleagues are willing to take away a constitutional right was merely a binding a preponderance of evidence our committee is charged with protecting Constitutional Rights, not eviscerating them. Once a court finds a person to dangerous to possess a firearm, what does the bill indicate the court should do . Incapacitation, provisional Mental Health services . No the bill does nothing to address the persons possible even though the person has been determined unsafe. I suppose we should all just pray that such a dangerous individuals dont have access to any other things that would allow them to harm themselves. If they do, then this is a waste of time. H. R. 1236 allows a person to petition to take away in a other persons Second Amendment rights with a court order. They dont even have to know each other. In light of that, it is unthinkable that this bill does not require a Law Enforcement officer to independently substantiate the claims, and there are no penalties for making a false claim about anyone. These are just a few of the flaws in the bill. I have a statement with my republican colleagues indicating that we would be meant to consider red flag legislation. Unfortunately, the proposal today is so flawed. Before, thereis are ways that we have worked together in the past. This is not one of those. This is another issue which i is nothe harm found here discussed probably as much today as will be is something that we will again work to, as the chairman has alluded to two make us feel better about what we are doing, but in the end, not actually help in a real way, and in many ways could add to the problem. With that, i yield back. Rep. Nadler thank you, mr. Collins. Without objection, other Opening Statements will be included in the record. I recognize myself for the purposes of offering an appointment. Clerk amendment to h. R. 1236 offered by mr. Nadler strike after enacting clauses and enter the following. Rep. Nadler without objection. The amendment is considered as read. Item will recognize myself to explain the amendment. As discussed in my opening statement, the amendment largely adds provisions from h. R. 3076 introduced by miss magrath from georgia. The provisions authorize the issuance of an extreme Risk Protection order when a household member is it adds gingers just the underlying bill. These provisions strengthen the underlying legislation and i encourage all members to support it. I recognize the iraqi member of the committee, mr. Collins, for any comments you may have. Rep. Collins thank you mr. Chairman. I support the amendment. May be addresses that due process issues i raised with the underlying bill. That i am still scratching my head over some of the dust at the amazement of what was just offered in the nature of a substitute. H. R. 1236 as introduced a loss for a judge to order some as firearms to be taken without notice to that person, if i judge finds there is reasonable cause that the individual poses a harm to himself or others by having access to a firearm. The amendment allows for such higher evidentiary standards. By stating that a state receives grants is a implement an extreme Risk Reduction order without best protection order without probable cause, i am not sure. This will lead to a patchwork of laws but varies from state to state, creating an incentive for those who are seeking protection orders against others to go shopping. If they cant find a place to go ask if i protection order, it allows them to mature in federal court and ask them to issue one. We can see why the bizarre amendments were made we cannot see why this was made to program. Und while far from perfect, it makes a better attempt at trying to secure Due Process Rights. Including being permitted to allow anyone to petition for an order against anyone. Under proposed federal process, on the family, house members or Law Enforcement officers would be allowed to petition for an and there would be ordered based on the finding of reasonable cause by a judge. Under the federal process, it can only be 14 days. However, the amendment requires the Court Holding longterm order hearing within them to two hours of issuing the ex parte order. The federal process would also require funds be provided to the respondent free of charge if he or she is unable to afford counsel. Other federal process, a court must find my clear and convincing evidence that the individual possesses the risk of imminent personal injury to himself or others. Ammunitionirearm or that the order is necessary to prevent injury. To order can be in effect for under a specified, timeframe and under the federal process, would only be for 180 days. It amazes me that we have set out to process standards for one forum and different sets of standards for another. As i we go back and come up with a consistent proposal that doesnt cause confusion or as we have said, forum shopping. I understand we are under a mess pressure to do something immense rusher to do something, but this looks more rust and create bad policy. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. With that, you back. Rep. Nadler the gentleman you back. Any amendments . California. Dy from i would like to strike the last word. Support mr. Carbajals bill and the substitute you just introduced. As the chair of the California Democratic delegation, we are all acutely aware in the city of california that california has taken a lead in so many gun violence measures. One of which is the socalled red flag bills. We know from the statistics from Law Enforcement that there are are in a badally place, who shouldnt have been armed, and of the state procedures were used, in the Public Safety was protected. That is really an important thing. We have passed bills already and no oneem to the senate, measure is going to solve every problem. But if we take a number of sensible steps, it will take people safer it will make people safer, and i believe that is really important. I want to say a word about mr. Carbajal, because he took the lead to author this bill. He was here earlier in the proceedings and had another obligation, obviously, he is not a member of the committee, but he took the lead to introduce the bill. I want to give him credit for doing that. Have hadof us situations where people in our districts were the victims of gun violence. Recently, my district in gaylord, california was gilroy, california was added to the sad list of communities were experienced gun violence. That is one of the issues we will get to the other bill later in the evening or perhaps tomorrow but you cannot do it statebystate. California in that. Case prohibited the purchase of assault weapons and magazines and also restricts sales to people under 21. So what happened, the perpetrator of this violence went to the neighboring state of nevada and he bought in nevada what he could and by in california what he could not buy in california. So we need to have a broader approach, which is what these bills due on the red flag law. It is not good enough when you can buy a gun on the internet just by clicking a little box saying, i am fine. It is not good enough to have stateonly loss much as i credit, those states who have stepped up to make a difference. I support the underlying bill, but i particularly wanted to thank our colleague, miss ,acbeth, who is a leader responsible for the substitute, but also mr. Carbajal, who is not a member of this committee, for the effort he has put in and the credit he deserves for it. To yield toappy my fellow californian first, mr. Small. Rep. Swalwell i thank the gentlelady. To follow up on the point so astutely made about californias and safety laws, it is often used against us california has some of the toughest laws, new york i know heres the same argument, illinois the same thing. People will cite gun deaths in oakland or richmond or chicago, but the truth is were only safe as the states around us. That recent study by Alameda County district attorney, Nancy Omalley found that in 2018, over half the weapons used in where a weapon was recovered, the firearm came from outside the state, primarily arizona and nevada, were there are much looser gun laws. I think the bill today seeks to recognize that. And i yield back. And the yield to the gentleman from maryland. I just wanted to respond to my friend from colorado who in the last round of statements lobbed a provocative question in my direction saying that he hoped i would stand with the constitution on these bills as i did in the bill about arbitration. I gladly accept that challenge. From the Supreme Courts decision in the heller versus district of columbia case where the Supreme Court said we can protect the Second Amendment which is the right of selfdefense, the right to have a rifle for hunting and recreation but it doesnt give you the right to give guns to unstable people, finance, fugitives, and it certainly does not negate the power of the state to create a reasonable time, manner and use. It is conditioned by a set of regulatory restrictions. Where the constitutional power congress. O if anybody believes any of these bills are actually unconstitutional, they should say so and explain why waste on the heller decision. Otherwise, all the Second Amendment rhetoric is off point. [applause] mr. Chairman, i have an amendment. Chairman nadler the spectators in the audience, please refrain from showing approval or disapproval of remarks from here. Those are the rules. Although we appreciate the sentiment, those are the rules. Mr. Chair . Thank you. Mr. Chair, if i could move to strike their last word. Chairman nadler you are recognized. Thank you. I really understand people that one is to do something after Mass Shootings. The thing is we need to work on a bipartisan fashion so we actually get it passed into law and do things that will actually make a difference. And we have done things in a bipartisan fashion in the past to actually help. And we also want to make sure that we are not taking away peoples Constitutional Rights without due process. So that is why i oppose this legislation. , one, itose it because lacks that you process protections that i want to see before somebody loses their Second Amendment rights. Two, it does not address Mental Health concerns. There is no requirement in this bill for an individual to be detained, evaluated, or provide Mental Health services. Three, it allows people Second Amendment Constitutional Rights to be taken away through ex parte orders, meaning they might not even know that this is happening to them or given a chance to defend themselves, and once people are stripped of their rights, there is no way to earn them back in this bill. I do believe we can Work Together on bipartisan legislation. I am from arizona, and our Republican Arizona governor had put forward through the senate bill last year, a red flag legislation that was also supported by the n. R. A. But it had really strong due process protections. It also addressed Mental Health concerns and it did not allow for ex parte orders. It only allowed for emergency orders with notice to the individual. It allowed people that did have their Second Amendment rights taken away a way to earn them back. With that, i yield back. Chairman nadler the gentlelady yields back. Strike the last word, mr. Chairman. Chairman nadler the lady is recognized. Chairman, there have been several things said here that do not allow me enough time to respond to, but let me First Express my appreciation to congressman carbajal and certainly to congresswoman mcgrath, whenever i see her. I hope she allows me to acknowledge jordan, because that is how i first met her. She was not a member of the congress, she was a grieving mother, which she remains today. That is the mountain that i stand on. 1999 was columbine. I came to congress a few years before that, and we are in the same position after the heinous act of columbine that we are today. I heard the same arguments. I heard, lets wait, we dont have the proper procedure. I heard people talk about Mental Health. And it was clear, as i recollect, i was even put on a Columbine Task force. It was clear that those young men, if you go back to their history, had Mental Health concerns. Every governor but does not want to move on any aspect of gun safety regulation raises the question of Mental Health. And what i say to my friends, write a bill. We will be happy. To move on that legislation. I have legislation dealing with metal health concerns. That ishis substitute part of the chairmans mark, there is an array of issues dealing with evidence presented on the longterm orders. There is a hearing. Where a due process can be rendered to the individual that you are seeking the extreme risk order against, family members can be in the court. There is no doubt. That as long as we languish in this sea of inaction and talk about what we can do, what we cannot do, we will do nothing. We need a federal scheme, construct, because as has been indicated, the mockery that is made of chicago is because surrounding states have no laws that deal with gun trafficking, and gun regulation, and gun safety, and they all piled into the states that do have laws. Same with washington, d. C. , california. So i think what were trained to do todays of knowledge that the federal government has been derelict, the senate has been derelict, in not passing the federal construct to save lives. I know that you will hear from my colleagues, but the pain that we are experiencing in states that have just experienced the devastation of gun violence, from el paso to odessa, and i can assure you, state officials in my state Mental Health, Mental Health, red flag laws, all of that has been rejected. And yet, this is an ar15, it is a lightweight. I have held it in my hand. So, while we peter patter around, someone can get this in your hands. Will be at the other end of that barrel while they are trying to protect the community. The ar15, the weapon of war was the choice of the killer in el paso. It has been the choice of the killer in las vegas. The rounds that that individual had was just unbelievable. So if you would read the bill, you would see that there are due process provisions in this bill. So i think that gentlelady from georgia for enhancing it through the federal construct. Week, hearings i had last the summit i had last week, and all through this time, i will take note of the witnesses that had to a one, none of them a political perspective of what card they were caring in your pocket. From chief medical examiners story chief doctor out of the texas childrens hospital, said 300 billion is being used to deal of gun violence, and the death and pillage that comes after it. Nobody raised what Voter Registration guard or who they are voting for. But they talked about the pain. So i am here today in the name Ayanna Stewart who flew from indiana to be with me in the summit, who organized the i am foundation, whose mother had three ayanna children, a girl ao boys. At seven years old, she had to run to her room because they came and said your brother, who left just a few minutes ago with his jordan shoes on, has been shot dead in the street. Hat she went on with life,. Continuing with her mother as a single parent. At 13, they came to get her out of class. She thought it had to do with her studies. But her other brother had been shot dead. Guns kill people who have conditions guns kill. People who have conditions contribute to that. And we have to do something federal law has to be what does something. Network the gentlelady yields back. Jenna men from colorados first. Hes got an amendment. Chairman nadler gentleman from ohio. I thank the chairman. If the House Judiciary Committee passes this bill today. We will have changed a fundamental principle in this country in america, you are innocent until proven guilty, until today. If we pass this bill, he will invert the standard and say you are guilty until proven innocent, and you will be guilty without doing anything wrong. Under this bill, you are guilty without doing anything wrong simply because someone thinks you might do something wrong. And who is this someone under this bill will can petition the court to take away your Second Amendment liberties . Who is the someone defined under this bill . H. R. 13, the chairman just introduced it, the top of page 13 says, family or household member, go down to subsection d, who is the household member . An individual who resides or has resided with the respondent during the past year. A roommate who hung out with you for one map last year can go and petition a court to take away your Second Amendment liberties. Some roommate who may be did not like you, who thought you were a whatever, can petition a court to take away your fundamental rights without you doing anything wrong. Guess what. When they go into court to take over your fundamental liberties, even though you havent done anything committed no crime, guess what, you dont even get to be there. You dont even get to defend yourself. That is exactly what this bill does. Mr. Raskin has talked about the constitution and the bill of rights, i have heard them on tv talk about it and twice here in the committee today talk about it and that is how we would take away someones, Second Amendment liberties . This is the House Judiciary Committee for goodness sake. What other cost additional right can you lose without doing anything wrong, and without your knowledge, and then have to go petition the court to get it back . Tell me what that is . Tell me when that happens. Tell me when that happens. This bill is so wrong on so many levels. And fire lit Second Amendment rights violates property rights, it violates Due Process Rights it violates Second Amendment rights. And today, the House Judiciary Committee, with the history of this committee has been defending the bill of rights, is going to pass this legislation . Scary. This is it is a scary road to start heading down. We all want to stop gun violence. We all know that these things that happen are terrible and evil. But trying to do something that this bill seeks to do in this manner is fundamentally wrong. And again, for the Judiciary Committee, in the United States house of representatives who has charged who is charged more than any other committee in this body to defend the constitution and the bill of rights, to pass this is just wrong. With that, i yield back. Chairman nadler the gentleman has a question . Mr. Chairman . Mr. Chairman . [indiscernible] thank you, mr. Chairman. I moved to strike the last word. Chairman nadler the gentlelady is recognized. Thank you, chairman nadler for calling this markup so we can take these lifesaving measures. I am proud that we are holding this historic markup on extreme Risk Protection order, including my bill, the extreme Risk Protection order act between 18. I am also proud to be a cosponsor on h. R. 1236, to which were adding my legislation. These are elected in 20 to keep firearms out of the hands of those who pose a danger to themselves or to others. The bill we are mucking up today will guarantee nationwide access to this critical truth. Through extreme risk loss at the state and federal level, we can prevent. Un violence too often, we are told we must accept gun violence, that no single piece of legislation can prevent gun violence. That is that of changing our loss, we must have more euros, security guards and more bulletproof glass. More vigils. But we have seen time and time again that somebody knew the shooter was dangerous, that they had weapons, that they were filled with violent thoughts, or even that they were thinking of taking their own life. Often, somebody new but nobody had the tools to do something about it. Some states decided their Law Enforcement officers and their Community Centers deserved that will. That is why 17 states, and the district of columbia past extreme risk loss. These laws have had bipartisan support. They have been passed by legislatures controlled by republicans and democrats. They have been signed into law by governors from across the political spectrum, and they are saving lives. We take the next step in preventing gun violence with extreme risk laws. This wreckage provides an incentive for more state to pass these laws. Support states that already have them, and create a federal extreme risk loss of that in the community in every corner of this country is access to this lifesaving tool. I will enforcement officers put their lives on the line every single day to keep their families safe. They deserve every twill we can give them to keep our communities safe is that of fighting Mass Shootings is more bullets. We can empower our Law Enforcement officers to disarm threats before a shot is fired, before another life is lost it this legislation also empowers family and household members, those who are most likely to see the signs that a person is in crisis. The legislation gives Law Enforcement and family members a way to take action, to protect themselves to prevent Mass Shootings, or to save the lives of a loved one considering suicide. Nearly 100 people every single day die in this country as a result of gun violence, and yes, i will never let you forget that my son, jordan, was one of them. I know the pain of losing a child to gun violence. And nobody in this country should ever be faced with that pain. That we fallday into not taking action, mothers and fathers across this country will live the same nightmare that i did, and many survivors that i have worked with all of the country. For every single day we failed to take action, siblings and spouses will feel the same agony, the same grief that comes with losing a loved one. It is our responsibility to prevent this suffering, to bring an end to this constant heart break,. In action is unacceptable. And today, we are acting to help those in crisis. We act to empower Law Enforcement. We act to prevent the vigil for willoved ones that wil keep losing if we dont do something about this. I thank my colleagues who have cosponsor this legislation and the many advocates and survivors who continue to fight to end gun violence. [weeping] rep. Mcbath because i promise you, no one is immune to this. Dont ever believe that you are immune to this. I ask my colleagues on this committee, both republicans and democrats, to stand up with me to support this legislation. We have to save lives i yield back the balance of my time. Chairman nadler will the gentleman yield . [applause] chairman nadler the gentlelady has yielded back the balance of her time. Seeks recognition. Gentleman from arizona. Moved to strike the last word. Chairman nadler recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I appreciate the dialogue taking place. I am grateful for it. This is a serious issue. I echo the comments made by the gentlelady from arizona, representative lesko, in the gentleman from ohio, mr. Jordan. I want to appreciate that the gentlelady from california, ms. Lofgren mentioned statistics and data because of that is important. Justice,epartment of bureau of justice statistics put out a study earlier this year, in january. This is important to realize ofause they found that 1. 3 aisoners who had committed Violent Crime in this country obtained their gun through a retail source. On the 1. 3 . That means it has an impact on Background Check Program will work or even be effective at all. But what they found that i think is really interesting and really problematic is that 43 obtained their weapon off the street or from the underground market. There are no background checks off the street and the underground market. It just is not happening. Whatroblem is, and this is i think we missed, is that a lot of times, we think we are going to correct something and we create legislation, and it leaves massive gaps because there are massive gaps in the way these things take place an additional study was conducted on the behest of president obama in 2017. He ordered the centers for Disease Control and prevention to do research on gun violence. Compounded by the institute of medicine and the National Research council found that among other things, firearms are used defensively hundreds of thousands of times a year. According to the cdcs, selfdefense could be an important crime deterrent. Studies directly acknowledging that effective use of guns have found consistently lower gun injury rates among crime victims compared to other victims using other self protection strategies. In particular, the ar15, which the gentlelady from texas mentioned. That has been used sometimes in selfdefense. 2018, ago, illinois in man intervened to stop the neighbors knife attack. The intimidation factor of the gun is why the neighbor stopped the attack. A 17yearold successfully fought off three armed attackers with his ar15. Houston, texas i homeowner survived a driveby shooting by defending himself with his ar15. Oklahoma in 2017, a man killed three wouldbe burglars with his ar15. A man protected a store from rioters by standing in front of the door with an ar15. 2013, homeew york, invaders fled after facing an air 50. I think sometimes, after facing an ar15. I think sometimes in our zeal to protect people, we sometimes forget the other side of the story, that there are lawful uses of these weapons used to defend themselves against people who are evil, with malevolent intentions. No one sanctions or approves of the type of mass shooting and violence that we have seen periodically in this country. Similarly, i dont think we can what is itrning Constitutional Rights on its head, turning the burden of proof on someone who has not committed a crime, and telling them, you will be found responsible or not responsible based on an ex parte proceeding, with or without your awareness of that proceeding, and then, you will have the pleasure of trying to set that aside at some future date if you will. That is not the american way. With that, i oppose the amendment and i thank the chairman and yield the balance of my time. Chairman nadler gentlemen yields back. Any amendments to the bill . Mr. Chairman. Chairman nadler gentlemen from colorado. I have an amendment at the desk. Chairman nadler the clerk will report the amendment. An amendment to the amendment in the nature of substitute to h. R. 1236 offered by representative from colorado. On page 32, enter the following between light 10 and 11 between lines 10 and 11. Chairman nadler without objection. The amendment is considered as read. The gentleman is recognized in support of the amendment. Thank you, mr. Chairman. The evidence linking guns and overwhelming. Is according to estimates, gangs and gang members are responsible for upwards of 90 of all Violent Crime in our country. Nationwide, 80 of all gun related homicides in the u. S. Are gang related. In chicago, there are over 100,000 get members, compared to 12,000 Police Officers. In the windy city a few years ago, gang members were responsible for 61 of all homicides. In homicide clearance rate for gun related death, meaning an arrest was made is incredibly low. On the 17th from 5 of these cases in chicago result in an arrest. Chicago criminals know they will get away with it, only 17. 5 . No wonder gun violence is so high. In baltimore, 87 of all killings were a result of gunfire. 87 of those killed had a criminal record, with nearly half having committed themselves crime. Nt. The homicide rate is on par with el salvador, nearly 56 murders per 100,000 people, higher than many of the worlds most violent countries. Baltimores homicide rate is 10 times the u. S. Rate. In 2015, the homicide clearance rate in baltimore was only 27 . It is clear that this kind of gun and again wireless and Gang Violence is common to major cities. Democrats continue to support sanctuary city policies that protect gang members who are in our country illegally, like members of ms13, who are terrorizing our cities. Aljandro1st, Daniel Cuellar was brutally murdered in maryland by a gang of seven people. While his murder was not gang related, it is believed he was killed because of a gang war. Six of the seven people charged in his murder are members of ms13. The majority of Violent Crime is linked to gangs in the United States. My amendment is simple, it would allow the issuance of a red flag order against anyone whose name appears in a gang database if there was a probable cause to include that individual in the database. We need to get guns out of the hands of violent criminals. It starts with giving Law Enforcement another tool to disarm gang members. We should target red flags against known criminals, especially gang members. This approach will have the most meaningful impact in reducing Gang Violence. I yield back. I yield to the gentleman from georgia. That. Ppreciate i think you standard you set for probable cause that there were concerns before about the gang list, and this raises the probable cause issue. I appreciate the gentleman making the standard of due process. At least this is a clear standard and provides something that somebody could do. I appreciate you offering that in that amendment. Are you back to the gentleman. Yield to the gentleman from arizona. I thank the gentleman from yielding and i appreciate his amendment in his efforts to improve the bill. I want to bring in some more data. This is done with regard to someone mentioned police so,cers on the other end, just a few years ago, 2013, 16,000 Police Officers from the level of officer of the way up to commanderinchief responded to the survey. Was, what questions effect do you think a federal ban on manufacturing and sales of my automatic firearms or assault weapons would have on reducing crime . 71 said they would have no effect. They didnt believe it would have any effect. Do in federal ban on manufacturing and of ammunition and magazine the rules more than 10 rounds would stop crime . 96 said no. Do you think increasing the severity of punishment for gun trafficking, particularly when unlicensed dealer or straw purchases would reduce instances of gun crime . 60 said yes, that, i think its something we need to be looking at. That is something we need to be looking at. Another survey from a gal report about how few there was a gao report about how few people who falsely try to get their firearms are persecuted. That is part of our problem. I yield back. Chairman nadler i recognize myself for five minutes in opposition to the amendment. The factors in the bill that are inbe considered by the Court Considering these applications are all behaviorally based. That is to say, based on whether the person has engaged in recent threats of Violence Toward other people, toward himself, recent acts of cruelty to animals, ongoing abuse of controlled substances by the person, may consider other factors such as recklessly displaying or brandishing a firearm, history of violence, and evidence of implicit threats. The amendment proposes a new ground which is not behaviorally based, it is associational he associational. Whether the respondents name of dangerouslist people, gang members, as maintained by any federal, state, local, tribal government or Law Enforcement agency. Number one, we know that lists are often put together with no due process considerations. They are often inaccurate. They are not kept uptodate. That is not true of all of them, there are many this that will be not we but they do do not have any indication of their liability of any such list with respect to any individuals. All other factors in the bill are basically be sent observations that the respondent committed threats or acts of violence, threats toward himself cruelty, inct of other words, things that would indicate the person is unstable or dangerous. Just the fact that someones name is on a database maintained by some department, a database of unknown accuracy, based on, we dont know what, that is really a due process problem. So i would oppose the amendment. Would the gentleman yield . Mr. Chairman . Chairman nadler i oppose the amendment. Gentlelady from texas, for what purpose . Thank you, mr. Speaker. Chairman nadler i yield to the gentlelady from texas. Thank you. I would like to see a couple of things about these databases. The experience in my district in el paso, as c has continued to separate families, they have has continued to separate resources, they have used these lists as a resource, a reason to separate children from parents. We have had casework that has the most hated the flaws in some of these databases, where a father has been accused of being a gang member, and we have discovered that after much time spent with lawyers, actually, their lawyers have discovered problems with identity, confusion similar names, people who have been denied their children as a result of this. So i would just urge the committee. I know that members of the Committee Like to use these databases as a resource. I am telling you, based on experience in my district, they should not be held up as a reliable resource. And i would urge you to vote against this amendment. Chairman nadler reclaiming my time, i would simply add in addition to what ms. Escobar said the experience you have had, the New York Times carried a story a few months ago about a 15yearold Central American immigrant, who had been here a number of years who was in high school and was observed doodling designs that some Police Officer thought was it again in sydney a and consequently was a gang insignia, and subsequently, he was deported with total lack of due process. Regarding what ms. Escobar said about the list, they are often discriminatory, and have no real enforceable standards about how they are put together and therefore, they should not be used,. By yield to the gentlelady. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I just wanted to say, to make a statement asking question. Databases,had these and the son of the stopped when they discovered they had threeyearolds on the databases. As gang members. So some of these are reliable, but a lot of them are not. So i think the comments that have been made in opposition of the amendment are correct. On the other hand, if the author uck,he amendment, mr. B if you are willing to vote in favor of this will if we adopt your amendment, i would support the amendment, because there is some due process involved. This would be a factor to be considered. So the question, if this amendment is adopted, will you support . The bill . Po back there are so many will you support the bill . Rep. Buck i will certainly consider that if you vote for this bill. I would consider it a step in the right direction. The bill is so flawed. Chairman nadler my time is expired. Chairman nadler moved to strike the last word. Chairman nadler . Chairman nadler the gentleman from georgia is recognized. I think we just brought into account a very interesting discussion that a couple of summers ago was brought to light and led by the chairman on a nobuy which was shown to have the exact same problems we just talked about. The list had the knitters, members of congress and others. Accept the list, because if we do that, we are making the same. With no accuracies are discussions. In this amendment offered by mr. Of trustartment with dish administration had to show probable cause of that the person was supposed to be on the list. Discussion here is also the chairman made a comment of the is a behavioral list and not an association list. Consider what it takes to become a gang member. This is not just associational, but a behavioral. This is not a joke but it is a question that need serious discussion, without saying that simply because we dont like lists, we will not vote for the bill. And will not vote for this because of the many problems listed beforehand in the bill. It is just the wrong attempt. As you look at this, to bar this amendment from not Going Forward as it is not behavioral i and it is associational takes to heart what can members do. How do you get into the gang to begin with . It is typically violent, behavioral, and typically shown to be the very thing this bill is purporting to do. If we really wanted to into some of these lists we talked about as being so bad, why dont we put the standard in everyone one of this list a probable cause . Why dont we raise the standard and put the list into certain areas that we can actually determine that somebody should be there instead of getting there is have seen, by mistake. It is amazing to me. We had a large flare up in this house a couple of years ago about the nofly list which are shown to have issues, and nobody from the other side brought this concern. Now we are bringing it as a concern. This amendment actually puts probable cause to identify the respondent as a member of a gang. That is a little concerning to me that we are blowing this into a different proportion to say that it is not behavioral so we dont want it. I think there are a lot of problems with that. With that, i yield to the gentleman in colorado. Thank you. I appreciate my friend from georgia. I want to respond to the chairmans comments. Mr. Chairman, being jumped into a gang is a behavior, it is an action. Wearing a red hat or blue shoelaces is an action. You choose to put certain things on to display. When you wear a tie to or going you tattoo that says 13 are making a statement to the world, and it is an action and you get the tattoo or you display it. When you show gang sense to other people, that is an action. Chairman nadler has the gentleman yielded . I do. Chairman nadler very briefly. It, maybes a sign of you are just doodling because it is the 13th of june when you doodle 13. Reclaiming my time. Reclaiming my time. Probable cause if taken property is not 13 on a doodle pad, mr. Chairman. This amendment actually says trouble cause. To say that i am writing 13, i might be writing circles because we are wasting time, by that does not mean i have a problem it means i am bored,. That is what probable cause would do. I would have to come in and say, should i or should i not yield that list . That is the concern i have here. You are spending a hair that does not exist. Would the gentleman yield . From colorado. I believe i have the time now. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, this goes beyond west side story, this is a situation where Police Officers are trained and they are there are very identifiable signs. It isnt just someone writing the number 13 in school, this is a series of, a threshold that has to be met. Whether you agree with it or not, a court is going to decide with a probable cause standard in order to make the decision that someone is in a gang. If we are serious about combating violent act. We should start with that kind of probable cause. Chairman nadler will the gentleman yield for a question . I will. Chairman nadler under this amendment, if this amendment were adopted and a court was considering an application for one of these orders and they had various pieces of evidence in front of them, one of which was the inclusion of his name on a list, on a gang list maintained by some department, what it have to conduct a collateral inquiry as to whether that department had probable cause to put the persons name of the list . What would happen in this situation is the officer involved would present to the court an affidavit. The affidavit with say, this individual is dangerous for these reasons. In their affidavit, it would say, this individual has a gang membership as evidenced by, a confession, a color, a tattoo, and association, on and on. Evidence, it would be the probable cause for this particular element of violence. If we are trying to stop Violent Crime, lets go after those who commit the Violent Crime. Chairman nadler the gentlemans time is expired. The gentlelady from texas. No, sorry, gentlemen from georgia. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I moved to strike the last word. Chairman nadler word is duly stricken. Gentleman is recognized. By rising opposition to this amendment. This is common sense legislation that goes to protect society and protect those who would be a danger to themselves. Representativend mcbeth for her diligence and her work in crafting this legislation along with representative carbajal. This is meaningful legislation. It would mark a crucial step towards addressing our countries tragic suicide epidemic. In 2017, over 47,000 americans died by suicide, and more than half of these included the use of a firearm. This marks a 31 increase in 2001. E since one loved ones are a danger to themselves and others, many people dont know where to turn. H. R. 1236 could change that by providing federal funding to increase Public Awareness of the laws, andsk los establishing a federal extreme risk law. The family and friends of those considering suicide could be educated on the effective, lifesaving resources. However, if we are to require our federal system to implement extreme Risk Reduction orders and place the onus on them to enforce these, we must ensure that the federal court system has the resources to do so. The judicial conference currently believes District Court systems are understaffed, burdening judges and impeding their ability to justice in their own courtrooms. In fact, a 2019, the judicial conference recommended that the Northern District of georgia hire at least one additional permanent judge to alleviate the judges. N current additionally, the workload of magistrate judges has increased since 2014, with an 8 increase of total matters disposed off these judges. In fact, the last Government Shutdown severely restricted federal Court Operations allowing, President Trump to not only hold federal employees hostage, but our judicial system as well. Had the president not finally agreed to work with congress, paid operations would have shut 18. After january h. R. 1236 is vitally em is fully funded and has all the resources necessary to enforce this bill. So once again were between a rock and a hard place. We need this bill. Courts. So lets pass this bill. Lets do what we need to do to protect the public. Would rotect those who result would resort to suicide with no other options. Lets help our relatives and friends of these people help them and pass this legislation and with that, i will yield back. Mr. Nadler who seeks recognition . The gentleman from texas, mr. Gohmert. Mr. Gohmert i rise in support of the amendment. I think its well thought out. Any time we can add probable cause finding to determines determinations by a court when theyre considering Constitutional Rights, then it certainly makes a proposed bill better. I know sometimes here in Congress People get to playing games. But i greatly appreciate the sincerity of my colleague, ms. Mcbath. It brings to mind so many times sitting there as a judge on felony cases and listening to the horrendous effects of crime. My friend from texas mentioned int since the events of 1999 colorado that nothing has changed but actually in 1999, the assault weapons ban was in place. And i know that some like to say oh, it was so effective and thats one of the directions folks here may want to go but apparently do, but the study that was done and often cited by people like senator feinstein, by chris owner and jeff roth, National Institute for justice, they actually noted, quote, the evidence is not Strong Enough for us to conclude that there was any meaningful effect, i. E. , that the effect was different from zero, unquote. Seven years later they published the n. I. J. Published a followup and said we cannot clearly credit the ban, the assault weapons ban, with any of the nations recent drop in gun violence and indeed theres been no discernible reduction in lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, end quote. Secondams in 1797 as our president said this constitution is intended for a moral and real jus people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other. , we hear about victimization as we hear my friend from georgia talk about the suicides. Crimes, rantee you as des, will increase morality and spirituality continue to decrease in america. The the polls show very clearly as the Supreme Court said at the turn of the 19th century and the Trinity Church case, that, you know, its cite it cited painls of evidence and said, pages of evidence and said, thanks christian nation. Obviously everybody wasnt this is a christian nation. Obviously everybody wasnt a christian. But as david horowitz, former atheist jew oid, currently says in his current, newest book, what were seeing really is an attack on christianity. And that has gone around our nation, and i know some can scoff, but the more we go away from being a moral and religious nation, the more need there will be to get rid of the Second Amendment, to get rid of freedom of assembly. Before that, you cant continue against right unreasonable search and seizure, due process, freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of really. Those will have to go away religion. Those will have to go away because we are no longer a moral and religious nation. Would the gentleman yield . Mr. Gohmert no, i wont. I do have enough time to do that. I would just submit to you that we can use these words and try to craft laws, but people will continue to kill themselves at a higher and higher alarming rate and there will be continuing these Mass Shootings we didnt use to deal with. But perhaps there was something good when children in school were taught that you shouldnt covet, you shouldnt be jealous, you shouldnt kill, that those are things you should not do. And today we have more politicians encouraging jealousy, covetousness, and weve divided the country and it needs to stop. That will do more than any of these bills and taking away Constitutional Rights. I yield back. Mr. Nadler the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The gentleman from pennsylvania. Ms. Dean thank you, mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to this amendment, for all of the reasons and the flaws that have been been pointed out by my colleagues. But i want to speak to the underlying bill. To compliment mrs. Mcbath, our colleague and friend, for her courage representative carbajal, the chairman. I just thank you for doing this. I wanted to serve on the Judiciary Committee. And one of the reasons i wanted to serve on the Judiciary Committee was to make a difference around gun violence. We can, were going to, and because of your strength, i believe we will get there. I have long believed in this measure and im going to tell you a very personal story why. It was literally 30 years ago today, i just texted my husband to say, you ok i tell this story . It was 30 years ago today that my then26yearold sisterinlaw in columbia, south carolina, was riding her scooter to work when a drunk driver hit her, killed her and left the scene. She was 26. She was beautiful. She had her whole life ahead of her. Hit and run driver. My husband had the sad task of going down to columbia to collect her body. And a couple of days later, he and i went down to collect her things. She was engaged and living with her fiance and when we packed up her things, we found a gun in the house. We also by then recognized a new and knew who the killer was. The drunk driver literally was the backdoor neighbor. Within shooting distance of my sisterinlaws home. My husband and i were enraged at the killing. But we didnt think twice. We looked at each other, we saw the gun, we put it in our trunk and locked the trunk. There was a gun in that house. I didnt think twice. Of course i wasnt going to leave it lying around for my sisterinlaws fiance, who was enraged, he was out of his mind with grief. And anger. And loss. I wasnt going to risk leaving it around. Its a rational thing to do. And people need the ability to do that legally. We need to give people the chance to save lives. Not all death is gun violence or Gang Violence. Much of it is suicide. As mr. Johnson so eloquently pointed out. We have a serious crisis of suicide. We have people that fall into grave crises. Theyre not otherwise mentally ill, but like my brotherinlaw, he was in a grave crisis. I didnt want to risk anybody else getting hurt. We need to give people these tools, they are legal, they offer due process, they will save lives. Red flag law make sense. They made sense years ago. They make sense now. And i hope we will pass this and save lives. I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Nadler the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. Does anyone else seek recognition on this amendment . The gentlelady from georgia. Mrs. Mcbath thank you, mr. Chairman. Id just like to make a response in reference to my republican colleague, mr. Gohmert. You know, i cannot agree with him more in terms of the country being in a moral crisis. And guns have a lot to do with it. But i just have to say this one thing. That i truly believe that the moral crisis is that the guns have become our guide god. Guns have become our god. Guns have become the means by which we solve all of our problems. Have become our authority. Guns are the problem because we no longer reverence god. I agree with you 100 . But immorally using guns as the means to solve our problems and our differences, then definitely we are in moral decay. And for anyone that considers themselves a person of faith, to continue to watch this carnage and not be able or willing to act, that is immoral. And i yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Nadler the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. The gentlelady from ennsylvania. Dean i just was looking at the amendment that was offered and im a little confused at the amendment. Because our colleagues across the aisle have said they oppose this bill because it doesnt provide enough due process. But this amendment fails at that task. It only requires probable cause when the bill itself would require clear and convincing evidence, which is a higher standard. Ms. Scanlon if our colleagues think that we should have a weaker standard, then that would be great and we can just all vote on the bill asis. The bill is also as written also would allow them to provide that evidence if we have a gang member who is current danger. So it doesnt exclude offering evidence, if in fact it can be provided. So i dont think the amendment offers anything. I think it actually is contrary to the arguments that our colleagues are making. And i would oppose it on that basis. Mr. Nadler the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. The gentlelady from texas. Ms. Jackson lee i want to respect the gentleman from colorado. Weve worked together on some tters and i appreciate his offering. I want to keep communities safe. And certainly it is a trigger, if you will, when communities hear about gangs. They would be inclined to support the gentleman from colorados amendment. But i think we have written a ery strong bill dealing with these risk orders. As i said, since 1999, columbine, United States congress, weve not moved much of an inch on trying to secure communities. You would utilize the term gang and most of our constituents would say put them on the list. I would be open to considering this after the fact. To give it more thought. But right now, as it is written, and knowing the protections that are in this bill that deals with orders and deals with longterm orders with hearings, i couldnt undermine that with this provision that is vague, with dangerous consequences. What is a juvenile . 12 . 11 . 8 . 14 . 15 . 16 . A juvenile is someone who runs. Ry of the School Officer named many different names in our schools throughout the nation. A juvenile is someone inside a car who shouldnt be in the car, where the older, more experienced young men mostly, or young girls are driving it. A juvenile is a child whose myin is not fully formed and concern would be, it is with a database and list that could not assured , could not be , t it is used and updated were that juvenile in college now is still on the list for something they did when they were 14. Then i think the last point that plagues the criminal justice system, it is inherently biased. A predominant population across the america are africanamericans, men and increasingly latinos and increasingly africanamerican women. So, i could not see to this language, knowing that the dominant members on that list who could be judged not dangerous, but have had a runin with the law, in the early period of their life, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and theyre on a list and theyre predominantly young men of color. I think the four corners of this slation allows [indiscernible] to be able to utilize the present list to call those who may be engaged in detrimental activity, that may be juveniles. The definitions do not limit does not say what age the persons are who engage in potential detrimental activity. So i would make the argument that this is not an adult bill, it says if youre engaged in certain conduct. That you would in fact be subject to such an order. A parent could indicate that that teenager is subject to certain behavior. D we realize that columbine, teenagers. Sandy hook, teenagers. Santa fe, a teenager. That parent, that teacher could have taken note of that behavior. And i would recognize that and it is recognized in this legislation. But for living in my life and living in my neighborhoods and living with juvenile Detention Centers that have 200plus youngsters, predominantly of color, i have to oppose this amendment. I yield back. Mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to ask the gentleman from colorado who has offered the amendment if he would consider, by agreement, an amendment to his amendment on line eight, where it says, otherwise tracking gangs, gang members and to add any individual affiliated with White Nationalism. Mr. Swalwell i would yield to the gentleman. I consider that a gang. Lets go for it. Mr. Swalwell would you add that language . Absolutely. White nationalism, black nationalism. Any type of supremacy and someones in a gang organization, absolutely. Add it to that it. If theyre being tracked by a Police Department for that and its a Dangerous Organization i think we should add, you know, if you want to do, that lets add another to this. Mr. Swalwell im just asking on my amendment mr. Buck sure. Sure. Mr. Swalwell ok. I yield back. As amended, right . [indiscernible] mr. Nadler doesnt the amendment to amend the amendment require unanimous consent . Indiscernible] mr. Nadler lets suspend for a moment. Mr. Swalwell yes. Mr. Chairman, im asking for unanimous consent to amend the amendment with the language agreed upon by mr. Buck and myself. Mr. Nadler do we need unanimous consent for that . Unanimous consent is required for a Second Degree amendment. Uspend for a moment. Mr. Nadler without objection, the amendment is amended. I would still a no vot on the amendment as amended vote on the amendment as amended. Ms. Collins mr. Chairman. Weve got real agreeable here but i would like to see the language that was said. There was a discussion for White Nationalism and black nationalism. I need to see the language that we just agreed upon. Mr. Nadler [indiscernible] ms. Collins thats a terrible thing. Not to get in front of the parade here. Lets at least make sure of what were doing. Mr. Swalwell if the gentleman would yield. Mr. Nadler yeah. Would the gentleman put the amendment in writing . Ms. Collins i dont have time. I was requesting a question. I was reserving the right to object. Mr. Swalwell line eight, including individuals affiliated with White Nationalism. Hard stop. [indiscernible] mr. Nadler the gentleman. Mr. Buck mr. Chairman, i would accept an amendment that said that one of the risk factors would be any form of supremacy indicating a tendency to violence. That would include your White Supremacy or White Nationalism. Any mr. Nadler what does that mean . [laughter] mr. Swalwell mr. Chairman. Mr. Nadler i would object to that. [laughter] i dont know what that means. Mr. Swalwell mr. Chairman. With respect to mr. Buck, im offering that, to move this along, if he doesnt want to accept that, well ill withdraw it. If mr. Buck doesnt want to accept the language i offered. Mr. Nadler the second of the amendment is withdrawn. Ow the question occurs on the gentlelady from washington. Ms. Jayapal thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to go back to the amendment and the question of gang databases and i wanted to highlight a report that was just released by the Inspector General for the city of chicago. And in that report, they talk about how immigration officials, education agencies, and the f. B. I. Access the database more than a million times over the last decade. And in the report, it noted the police in the last 20 years identified more than 134,200 people as gang members, but 15,000 of those entries did not list gang membership or explain why they were listed as gang members. Nearly 1,000 people were listed with multiple genders. 80 people were entered as zero years 0 years old. 90 people had a birth date before 1901. And thousands were identified as gang members despite not being arrested or accused of a crime. And so i think that this amendment is problematic on so many levels and i want to take us back to the underlying bill and extreme Risk Protection order act. Which would incentivize states and localities to implement extreme risk laws, which is simply common sense. And i wanted to bring forward our experience in my home state of washington, which became the fourth state in the nation to pass an extreme risk law in 2016. Since we have implemented that law in Washington State, and weve supported it with county resources to help enforce the law by also recovering firearms from people ordered to surrender them by a judge, a number of people at risk of suicide have been referred. According to kimberly wyatt, who runs the king county program, she has, quote, seen folks who were in the midst of the Behavioral Health crisis come into court and thank Law Enforcement for saving their lives. Late last year Law Enforcement in Washington State prevented a possible mass shooting after someone flagged a potential threat. And that was a man who posted images on facebook of himself holding an a. R. Style rifle and posted repeated threats to, quote, kill 30 jews and commit a school shooting. Evidence shows these extreme risk laws are effective. For every 10 to 25 firearms removals under extreme risk laws in connecticut and indiana, about one life was saved through a Suicide Prevention prevented. Case study in californias extreme risk law found that at least 21 cases in which extreme Risk Protection orders were used to disarm people who threatened Mass Shootings, and the support for these laws cut across demographics and party. A recent n. P. R. Poll showed that americans, including republicans and gun owners, broadly support red flag laws like this. And so i just want us to come back to the incredibly passionate and moving testimony of my colleague, representative mcbath, and thank goodness we have you here in congress. We are talking about saving lives. We are talking about reasonable things that can and have been done in states across the country that have been shown to be working, that do not continue to need amendments like this one that we have with tremendous respect to my colleague, mr. Buck. We have data that shows that these laws work, we should just pass this law here in congress, and we should move on to the other bills that we have that also are necessary in a tapestry of laws that we need to pass here in congress because the reality is that as we sit here debating and debating, more lives are being lost. In the 200 days since the senate failed to act on the commonsense legislation that we passed in the house of representatives, we have had incredible numbers of Mass Shootings. In el paso, texas, and dayton, ohio, we went with my colleague, representative escobar, congressman neguse and i went to the vigil, the memorial in el paso, deeply moving. We need to take action. And i just hope that my colleagues will get to the core of what this bill does, which has been proven again and again, state after state, to be an effective way of ensuring that we do not put guns in the hands of those who are at extreme risk. Red flag laws. So i thank you, mr. Chairman, and i yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Nadler the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. The question is on the amendment. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. Move to strike the last word. Mr. Nadler the gentleman from pennsylvania. Who i hope will be the last speaker on this amendment. The gentleman from florida. Thank you, mr. Chairman. If the gentleladys correct, these red flag laws are working state by state, then i dont understand why we wouldnt allow them to continue to work state by state. It seems notable to me that my state of florida has a strong sheriff system. Other states have state police. Which is not a regime were familiar with. To institute a National Red Flag law seems to be unfaithful to the very debate that we hear from my democrat colleagues. Mr. Gaetz im ready proud of floridas red flag rather proud of floridas red flag law. I think it gives due process. I think a lot of concerns my republican colleagues have addressed wouldnt apply to the florida law. By also recognize that different states are but i also recognize that different states are different and it would be my home that we allow the federal hope that we allow the federal system that were all proud to work within to function correctly. Its nye expectation that best practices will emerge, that theyll be copied among the states and we can get on to the stuff that only the federal government can do, like reforming our asylum laws so that we dont continue to have a mounting crisis on our southern border. I know the Ranking Member has more offer to so ill yield him the remainder of my time. Clings collins ms. Collins i agree with the chairman. One of the things that the gentleman from florida just brought up is the conflicting standards in this bill. Theres a conflicting process standard in the bill between states and also between the federal. I think thats a problem that invites [indiscernible] theres also many laws that have issues that someone is having an issue you can be brought before a judge, you can be found incompetent, you can find these in every state. But also going back to the last one. This is actually something that the gentlelady from washington and i agree on, just in different ways. Dont bring if we cant bring this list up, due process put in an extra step of due process, then dont ever bring the no fly, no buy list up again. Dont ever bring it up again. Because it is no due process on that list. You can be on the list and not even know it. And similar names i guess, lets just be in having this conversation, i understand if you want to vote against or not like it. I get that. But lets dont have another discussion, in fact, i would maybe put forth lets do away with the no fly, no buy list. Everybody would go really upsbet that. But this brings out a problem. This one actually makes a list better in the sense that it is still problematic, which i think we would agree upon, but at least there is a probable cause out of outside of being put on the list. Ms. Jayapal would the gentleman yield . I was not in congress when the no fly, no buy list was passed. I would tell you that on the outside, we were not in favor of it. For exactly the same reasons. There is a serious problem with who ends up on these lists and how you get off of these lists. I dont think that my entire caucus agrees with me on that. So im not speaking for anybody else. But i am saying that there is a consistency here, at least to the thinking that these databases have tremendous problems. And the reality is that on the no fly, no buy list, that no fly list, that list targets a lot of muslims, a lot of sikh americans, a lot of individuals that are deemed as terrorists. Here we are targeting black and brown communities, as my colleague from texas talked about. And i just think we have to be very clear that there are a lot of problems with these databases. We talked about this during the dream act. We had an extensive discussion on. This i am consistent, mr. Collins, i am with you on this. Ms. Collins i agree. Reclaiming the time. I think the gentleladys right. I was here, lived through this, and was talked very badly about whether we say this is a whenever we say this is a problem, we say were the worst in the world because we let a terrorist get a gun. No. I appreciate the gentleman from colorado bringing this up. I think there is sufficient protection. I will vote for this amendment. But at least its brought out a large discussion, sometimes, but in late nights in the Judiciary Committee as i found out over my 6 1 2 years, its amazing who comes around to actually having similar points of view. I would never have started the day thinking ms. Jayapal and i would have a similar view on something but we can handle that and the world is still going to be processing tomorrow. I yield back. Mr. Nadler the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The question finally occurs on the amendment. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. No. President opinion of the chair, the nays have in the opinion of the chair, the nays have it. The amendment is not agreed. To roll is requested. Call call the roll. The clerk [roll call] the gentlelady from california. Are there any other members who wish to vote who havent voted . The clerk will report. The gent california. Waiting on the gentleman from florida. Mr. Nadler the clerk will eport. Caller mr. Chairman, more 11 ayes, 21 noes. Mr. Nadler the amendment is not to. Ed to. Are there further amendments. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Nadler the gentleman from louisiana. I have an amendment at the desk. Mr. Nadler the clerk will report the amendment. Caller amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to h. R. 1236 offered by mr. Johnson of louisiana. Page 29, line 6, strike shall be d all that follows through line nine. Mr. Nadler without objection the amendment will be considered as read. The gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment. R. Johnson spks i offer this amendment mr. Nadler the gentlelady from california retains a point of order. Johnson i have this amendment to prevent an applicant from know gliha rassing someone named. We have to prevent deprive anything american of Constitutional Rights, i think can help to we can help to do this by increasing the level of punishment here. H. R. 1236 did not include any penalties for false reporting or frivolous petition. While the amendment in the nature of a substitute now includes such a provision, it does not go far enough to deter false claims. My amendment would add that an applicant abusing this process an be fined up to 5,000 and imprisoned up to 5,000, imprisoned for up to five years or both. No american with a malicious intent to strip an american citizen of a right should be allowed at any time. The right to bear arms is a critical part of our no american history. Its rooted in our inalienable right to selfdefense to secure personal liberty and private property. We have a duty here in the House Judiciary Committee to guard that carefully. I want to say this to my dear colleague, ms. Mcbath, whose story is come pelling. I know that we agree on the moral crisis in our country, im glad you said that tonight. I take issue with one thing you said. You said our concern is that guns have become our god. Those are your words. Thats not our concern. Our concern is that there is a very real risk today that state that state is taking the place of god. That the state is becoming our god. And that was the founders great fear. Thats reason we have the bill of rights. Thats the reason it was passed. Its the reason we have to protect these individual rights. Because its so important to who we are as americans and as human beings. So i urge my colleagues to support what i think is a very reasonable amendment. Will the gentleman yield . Mr. Johnson im happy to yield. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would ask if the gentleman is familiar with any jurisdiction in the United States, territory or state, where perjury is not a crime, meaning where if someone was to go to a court and give a false statement where they could not be charged with a crime . I yield back. Mr. Johnson i think thats a crime in every jurisdiction. Unless youre talking about the f. B. I. , representative gohmert says. What we need to do is build in this bill, its and been acknowledged because these amendment in the nature of a substitute has these penalties, its been acknowledged that we need to have a deterrent here because this is so serious, step thats being taken is so serious. All im saying is, lets enhance the penalty because if youre going to have a real deterrent you need to make it serious. I withdraw my point of order. Mr. Johnson i yield back. Mr. Nadler the gentlelady ithdraws her point of order. For what purpose does the gentleman from california seek reck snigs . Move to strike the last word. Mr. Nadler the gentleman is recognized. Let me first thank representative carbajal and representative mcbath nor legislation. I want to say that everyone on this committee wants to reduce gun violence. I dont doubt the motivations or sincerity of my colleagues across the aisle. I do note that their argument nd policies have not made us safer. Over the years, in fact, based on recent study, we have increased Mass Shootings, not only in frequency but also in lethality. We have heard numbers and arguments from my colleagues across the aisle and both their policies and those advanced by the president have not worked. I think we should look at different ways to solve this problem. With respect to this specific legislation, the extreme Risk Protection order what were doing is not that new. Because under Domestic Violence restraining orders you can take away the guns of the perpetrator in an ex parte hearing. E have 5150 mentally ill determinations where again a person can get the guns taken away without having to be at a hearing. This has been done before in other jurisdictions. Have upheld it. This it doesnt seem that in these other instances with Domestic Violence retraining orders and 5150 proceedings we have this massive increased penalty. Theres no reason for it to apply to this bill. Must have of this bill is simply funding existing laws in existing states that have extreme risk Protection Laws, that have been upheld by the courts. So nothing here is unconstitutional because the courts have already upheld existing laws that do this. I note that i was in the california state ledgely is chaur when a young man went on a rampage near u. C. Santa barbara and killed six students and injured several others. It was a tragic day and spurred us to pass californias gun violence restraining law, the first extreme Risk Protection order in this country. I believe that this legislation will be very helpful for states to continue doing these laws. I also have two marksmanship awards from the u. S. Military. I fire guns, i have taken them apart, i clean them, i know how lethal they are. In terms of suicide, they are extremely lethal, more lethal than any other means of suicide. We know based on the latest statistics from the centers for Disease Control in 2017 there day. Ver 100 gun deaths a today in america over 100 people would die from gun violence. 35 will be killed by someone else. Over 60 will be by suicide. Risk protection k protection orders will help mitigate that problem and we know it works because studies have shown it works in state that was adopted these extreme risk Protection Laws. So we can try doing the same thing over and other again and expect a different result but that doesnt seem to be working. We should try something new. I request imy colleagues to think about this as simply trying to pass legislation because the old ways have not worked, have not kept us safer. With that, i yield back. Mr. Nadler i recognize myself for a moment. I recognize myself far moment on the amendment. I am not prepared to support this amendment at this point. I dont know that we should oppose the amendment. The difference is, the bill says shall be fined not less than 1,000. The amendment says not more than 5,000. So that could be 1,000 also. The amendment adds imprisonment up to five years. Presumably someone who did it so egregiously that a judge would do that probably committed perjury in doing that my hesitation at this point is that i think before we accept this amendment wed have to look at talk to some other people, look at what various state laws say to make sure were not completely out of line with the practices and experiences. I will oppose this amendment for the moment but it may be that well go forward it by the time we get to the floor. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Nadler i yield. Mr. Collins i appreciate that. I think we opened this, so just to clarify because i know a lot of us would be interested, if we could Work Together would be a successful amendment at rule committees . Mr. Nadler im not going to commit that wed accept it. Mr. Collins but thats your intent . Mr. Nadler yes, i suppose. Im not committing we will accept this amendment but i do think that it its worthy enough to study and discuss it. Either to accept it later or accept it in part or not. Im not prepared to im not prepared to support it now. I would oppose it now if it comes to a vote. If we dont do that, well take very careful look at this will the gentleman zeeled i am willing i take the chairman at his word in good faith. I do think its a reasonable and thoughtful amendment. I think its one that should be bipartisan. I do take you at your word and and hers the others that sponsor this legislation that we do not want people to abuse this. We dent want anyone to be unjustly deprived of their Constitutional Rights and because of that, in a spirit of bipartisanship which is all too rare these days, i withdraw this amendment in the hope that we can work on that together. Mr. Nadler i appreciate the gentlemans action. We will look at it carefully. Well be talking to you and to the minority, to the ranking minority member before we go to rules committee. Mr. Collins can i bring up a point . I know theres another amendment waiting on this one. Why dont we withdraw pending work right now and well work on it right now because this is something we can get den. As we both have known mr. Nadler we have to talk to other people. Mr. Collins we can sit right here and do that mr. Nadler i cant do that. The penalty prenchings is in the amendment in the nature of a substitute. Its not mr. Nadler i agree with that. Im not sure theres any research on the state level that will change it. Mr. Nadler i dont know. Im not prepared to accept it at this point. Ill withdraw it because weve been here for umteen hours anyway. Mr. Nadler i appreciate the gentlemans action. We will be working on. This are there any other amendments . The gentleman from california. I move to amend by striking the last word. Mr. Nadler i couldnt hear. Move to strike the last word. Mr. Nadler the gentleman moves to strike the last word. The gentleman is recognized. I think its ironic that the previous bill on binding arbitration it was argued that trial by jury is so important it should be provided even when both parties waived that right in a contract. Then we immediately turn around and consider this bill which argues that we should deny first and Second Amendment rights without a jury. Mr. Mcclintock i do believe the underlying premise of this bill s is sound. Believe if someone gos out of their way to warn us they want to kill a bunch of people we ought to take them at their word and thats what we used to do we identified someone who was a danger to themselves or others we could judicially commit them to Mental Hospitals where we could confine them, treatment them, care for them and protect the rest of society from them. In may state of california, 1958, we had 37,000 mentally ill in state Mental Hospitals, many of them were dangerous. When the states preponderancelation was barely a third of what it is today. Unfortunately that would be about 100,000 preponderancelation in the Mental Hospital today but we emptied out those hospitals, only about 7,000 are now confined for treatment and the rest are out on our streets, many among our burgeoning homeless population. And id ask the proponents a few questions. First, what makes you think such a law will keep firearms from violent people . Most firearms used in crimes are illegally obtained in the first place. Is it the effectiveness with which our drug laws have kept drugs out drugs out of the hands of drug addicts . And second, and more importantly, if someone is too dangerous to have legal access to a gun, arent they too dangerous to be out on our streets at all . If theyre violent criminals why arent they incarcerated . And if theyre dangerously mentally ill, why arent they confined so that they cant do harm with illegally obtained firearms or any number of other lethal forms of mayhem . Mr. Lieu was right in one respect, he said we do need to look closely at what policies work and what policies dont work. We did not have this crisis 50 years ago. We have to ask what policies have changed in those 50 years . 50 years ago we executed murderers. 50 years ago we put violent criminals behind bars until they were too old and feeble to be dangerous. 50 years ago when we identified a dangerously mentally ill person we confined them so that we could treat them and we did these things fully within the provisions of our bill of rights and trial by jury. 50 years ago, we had virtually no gun control laws and the question id raise after 50 years of enacting such laws is, if they were a solution to this problem wouldnt things be Getting Better and not worse . Mexico has the most stringent gun control laws in the western hemisphere yet their murder rate is four times what it is in the United States. In 50 years, weve dramatically constrained the death penalty. Weve released dangerous criminals back onto our streets. Through Early Release programs as well as sanctuary laws. And we have emptied our state Mental Hospitals. At the same time weve enacted a wide range of gun vol laws and hings are getting worse. 50 years of practical experience we discovered that gun vol laws are extremely effective at disarming lawabiding citizens. Theyre extremely ineventive at disarming criminals and madmen and trofts and terrorists. If were serious about confronting this crisis, we should set aside ideology and instead take a clear look at the Public Policies that actually work to control this violence and to protect all of our citizens from it. Until were willing to do so, i believe things are going to continue to get worse. I yield back. Mr. Nadler the question now are there any further amendments . The gentleman from colorado. I have an amendment at the desk. Mr. Nadler the gentleman has an amendment at the desk, the clerk will report the amendment. Caller amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. Buck of colorado. On page 22, line 20 i reserve a point of order. Mr. Nadler the gentlelady reserves a point of order. The amendment will be considered as read. The gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment. Mr. Buck thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to focus on one area of deep concern that affects active duty military personnel as well as millions of our nations veterans. Sadly this bill turns a deaf ear to the concern ours Service Members and veterans have been raising for years. For years the v. A. Has been using a patient flag system to recognize those considered unsafe or a threat. These are used to delay or deny treatment. The bill allows a veteran to be flagged a danger even when the veteran expresses, quote, frustration about v. A. Service or wait times, end quote. We know v. A. Wait times are unacceptable. The danger is not there the v. A. s patient flag system is also ripe for abuse. More than six years ago the v. A. Inspector general said the democracy left quote a comprehensive definition of what constitutes disruptive behavior, end of quote. The system is also not uniform, allowing v. A. Facilities to adopt their own system without proper oversight. In january, 2018, the v. A. Inspector general also expressed concern that the v. A. Flag system was arbitrary. It was secretive and veterans were unaware they had been flagged and it denied the veteran due process as it lacked any resource to remove phony flag or file an appeal in any meaningful way. The i. G. Also found that medical records for full 49 of all flagged veterans lacked any evidence that the veteran had been notified theyd been flagged. One veteran was flagged out of retribution because he registered a complaint of elder abuse after a v. A. Nurse openly mocked and laughed at a deaf veteran of world war ii in the waiting room. Flags like are this are all too common, they are used to punish veterans who speak out including on behalf of fellow veterans. Im concerned that this system which lacks proper civil liberty protection such as notice and right to appeal will result in an influence extreme Risk Protection orders. We cannot allow that to happen. Another concern i have is that the potential far red flag under the current bill will deter veterans from seeking appropriation medical attention for servicerelated disabilities. This red flag bill has the potential to stigmatize veterans who might suffer from ptsd. Congress has done so much to encourage veterans to seek needed help. With this red flag will this red flag bill now use the veterans medical records against the veteran . We cant allow that to happen. Im concerned with the impact a red flag regime would have on active duty military personnel. Imagine a marine who is about to deploy, recently got divorced and her exhusband files petition for extreme risk against her not because shes truly a danger but because hes use the process which lacks commonsense safeguards to target his extwhisme kind of stress that a made up petition will have will affect command readiness for our military. For this reason, i think red flag petitions involving active duty military personnel should be referred to d. O. D. So they can be handled within the command authority. So heres what my amendment would do. First it would require federal courts to refer extreme risk pr text order petitions involving active duty personnel to d. O. D. Second, it makes sure that past military service which naturally involves a history of using a firearm cannot be considered as a risk factor to deprife a veteran of their Second Amendment rights. Third, it clarifies existing federal law to ensure that accessing v. A. Benefits will not trig aerolos of Second Amendment rights. This approach is based on bipartisan bill to protect veterans rights. Fourth, it ensures that no veteran will lose their gun rights based on the fact that the veteran needs help in managing their affairs. Such as v. A. Benefits or was flagged under the v. A. Patient system that fails to include proper protections and safe forwards. I believe this amendment is commonsense, it contains many bipartisan provisions and i urge the committee to adopt the amendment. I yield back. Mr. Nadler the gentleman yields back. Does the gentlelady insist on her point of order . Ms. Lofgren i do. The amendment is outside the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee, devises procedures within the jurisdiction of the have the rans Affairs Committee not this one and therefore is beyond the scope of our Committee Authority and is not germane. Mr. Nadler dohe