Transcripts For CSPAN House Judiciary Committee On Gun Violence Prevention 20240714

Approximately 204,000 hate sex, ased on race, are committed in the u. S. Every year. An historic africanamerican church. In 2016, a nightclub in orlando, florida, was attacked. Most of whom were lgbtq and latino. A total of 12 people were killed and 10 wounded during attacks at synagogues in pittsburgh, pennsylvania, and powerade, california. Just last month, a shooter in el paso targeted mexicanamericans who were shopping at a walmart store, killing 22. These horrible attacks have two things in common. They are all hate crimes and all committed with a gun. As these show, guns are a motivatedool of hate violence and intimidation. Hate crimes committed in the u. S. Involved a gun. Despite these grim statistics, our nations weak gun laws give easy access to guns to individuals seeking to do harm. Many of those convicted of misdemeanor level hate crimes remain free to buy and possess guns. These hate crimes include many types of threatening and dangerous conduct including threats of assault and harassment to members of a protected class. Nearly half the states wouldsarm hate act address this dangerous gap in where individuals can be stopped from buying and possessing guns. It extends only to those convicted of misdemeanor hate or those who have had it imposed on them because of the issue or attempted use of physical force, threatened use of a deadly weapon, or other Credible Threats to the safety of a person. This language ensures this prohibition applies only to those convicted of underlying crimes as opposed to Public Safety risks. This is a modern, common sense measure to ensure people with demonstrated issue with hate motivated each person who would be prohibited from purchasing or possessing a gun under this bill has been found beyond a reasonable doubt to have committed a crime of violence or criminal physical threats based on the race or sex of the victim. Messagel sends a strong that hate and violence is an acceptable and we will do everything in our power to prevent attacks perpetrated by armed assailants. It is important legislation and we urge its quick adoption today. I recognize the gentleman from georgia. Mr. Collins. His opening statement. Thank you, mr. Chairman. It has been a long day. This is another piece of legislation that really attacks a different angle. I have not decided it was ever i am not sure where you find that. Somebody else has i hate motivation, malice motivation, and just by calling it something based on who they are attacking or not attacking does not make it worse. Crime is not somehow worse because of the identity characteristics of the victim. Justice must be swift. Murder is murder. Assault is assault. We must remain faithful to our democratic nation. Governments that attempt to restrain peoples hearts and minds for whatever reason pave the way to political violence. The First Amendment is there to protect speech we abhor. It is not there for speech we like and murder is murder, assault is assault. You do not make the crimes worse or less if one human attacking another and that is wrong and should be condemned at all costs. Put itttempt to would allow them to use vaguely defined hate crimes against individuals with whom they agree by depriving them of a fundamental constitutional right. We know this is true because it would apply retroactively. It may have occurred years or decades in the past. War with this legislation is unnecessary. Current law ensures dangerous felons cannot possess firearms no matter the motivation for those crimes and applying them to a certain level because of a definition again is the problem. It is we are on an interesting slope with this bill. It is the prerogative to pass this bill, which i am sure they will do, probably expeditiously. Please listen to the minority. Be careful what you are doing here as you go forward, keeping this in a certain way of going back and retroactively applying. Hate is hate. Free speech was once called we may want to suppress it. I respect the right of my colleagues to express to you that i disagree. When somebody attacks somebody, when somebody murders somebody, assault somebody, goes after somebody with a bullet or anything, if that comes from a matter of hate, you dont have to call it what it is. It is already shown in the action. This is another misguided attempt by this legislation. If this is the decision of the majority, i say it is not good. And that is why the votes take place. I yield back. It will be considered as read for purposes of the amendment. I will recognize myself to explain the amendment. It adds a severability clause to the bill, providing that, should any portion of the bill be found invalid, the remainder of the bill will stay intact. It makes no other changes to the bill. They want all members to support it. I yield back the balance of my time. Collins, i recognize, for any comments. I yield back. Gentleman yells back. Any amendments to the amendment . Gentlemen from rhode island. I would like to strike the last word. Gentleman is recognized. I want to begin by thanking my colleagues, who have participated in todays hearing and acknowledged the leadership. Painfule taken very personal experiences in their lives and communities and used it really to focus in a very determined effort to reduce gun violence in this country, and you have been an inspiration to all of us and we admire you so much for all of your work. I want to respond briefly to mr. Collins concerning that crime is a crime and hate crimes i guess are no different and i could not disagree more. The reason that we have, in fact, adopted provisions both in federal and state law to make hate crimes more severely punished is because they are, of committedcrime against an individual because of their race, sexual orientation, gender identity, and it is intended to instill fear in a n entire community. And so, what we know from the Southern Poverty Law Center is there are 890 two hate groups currently operating in the United States, a number increased by 14 since last year. They also found 59 of domestic terrorist attacks were carried out between 2009 and 2015 with a gun. So there is a real connection between guns and hate. The National Crime Victimization Survey revealed that between 2010 to 2016, there were over 56,000 hate crimes that involved a gun. For this report entitled hate and guns a terrifying combination by the center for american progress, be made part of this record. August 3,ow is, on 2019, a gunman shot and killed 22 people and injured four others in a mass shooting that occurred in a walmart in el paso, texas. White nationalists gunman wrote in a manifesto that you have 10 hours with the intention of targeting mexicans. What happened in el paso was not unique. It was the pulse nightclub shooting in orlando, florida, inspired by hate. A gunman opened fire on a bible study group, killing nine people at the church in south carolina. And pittsburgh, a gunman killed 11 people and injured seven more people in a a synagogue. We have a responsibility to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them, and this connection between hate crime convictions and subsequent additional violence is clear. Researchers found, and i am quoting from this report, researchers found that individuals who commit hit hate crimes escalate their conduct in order to ensure message is received by the targeted individual or community. Researchers from Northeastern University who specialize in hate crimes explain the phenomenon this way. Hate crimes are intended to send a message, for example, that blacks are not welcome on this block or with tinos should not apply for that promotion. They are intended like acts of terrorism that meant it to send a signal of fear and horror. If the criminal response fails to elicit the desired retreat, the offender frequently escalates the level of Property Damage or violence. A black Family Moving into an allwhite neighborhood is formed, they do not heed the warning, their windows are broken, and if they do not move out, their house is firebombed or worse. There is a pattern of escalation that demonstrated the importance of people do not have prohibitions against it. There are 23 states in the district of columbia prohibiting them from buying or possessing guns. The vast majority of states have not enacted laws for it. This would prevent people who are convicted of hate crimes with research that shows there is substantial likelihood of violence with increased likelihood with the use of a gun. This is a commonsense proposal to keep guns out of the hands of people who commit hate crimes. They are likely or have a propensity to violence. It will help check their communities from some of the worst violence we have seen. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and with that, i yield back. Gentleman yields back. Any amendments . Gentlemen. Thank you. Hate, the emphasis on federal hate crime laws that were pushed through here, heralding the jamesburg case in jasper, texas as the poster case. It was misdirected. James was horribly killed. As i said before, i would not have a problem if texas adopted a sentencing where the victims family in said case could choose the way that he were to lose his life and the Death Penalty would draggingd, including the perpetrators behind a truck until bed. Crimeder our federal hate that was adopted by heralding case,mes byrd the two most culpable of the three. The Death Penalty. That is why i want the el paso shooter tried under texas law and not under any federal hate law because he cannot get the Death Penalty under federal hate crime, and it is an absolute defense, under the federal hate crime law, if you come in and raise a reasonable doubt that, oh, i did not actually hate any of those people. I chose them all at random. That is a complete defense. You are acquitted under our federal hate crime law. I know, as my colleague said, it is terrifying to think of hate, somebody with hate, and a dime, but from what i saw as a judge, most people were more terrified when there was somebody that was what used to be called a psychopath, sociopath. Now, antisocial personality. They do not care. Now, those people are far more difficult to ever rehabilitate. There is plenty of evidence, if you study sentencing and rehabilitation, there is plenty of evidence out there of people who have hated, committed a crime with hate in their heart, they got a shot at being rehabilitated because they are not necessarily an antisocial personality. The people that shes victims at random, you are going to have a tough time ever rehabilitating them. And this is how misguided this whole emphasis on hate has gotten. You look here, page one. You know, convicted in any in ava not tony not felony. It has to have an element that the defender was motivated by hate or bias, because, and we of the term here, because sexual orientation, for example. Or gender identity. The use orlves attempted use of physical force. We are not talking that somebody has used a gun or deadly weapon, a knife, a machete, like the 800,000 or so that were killed with studies in rwanda. This is just any use of physical force. Nougie,is a milky or the example that got me back when the hate crime laws were passed and it still is applicable in this set mario, and that is a woman and her little daughter walk up to a street corner. There is a guy fair in a raincoat in a raincoat. Pleasure. W he gets the woman reacts by hitting him with her purse. She has just committed a federal hate crime. If a mom has taught her little girl that you would be careful, beware of strangers, strange men, and she is in a restroom, and a guy comes in, and the little girl reacts or the mom is in their and feels like the re and feels like she is defending her daughter, who is freaking out, they are committing a hate crime. In the case of the flasher, he is a victim, she is a hater. This is housetrained this kind of law has become. We should not be taking away somebody pops right to keep and bear arms, should not be infringing on that, simply reacted to what used to be called a pervert and is now being called a victim. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. The gentlelady from texas. I moved to strike the last word. I cannot tell you how astressing is for me to hear dismissive account of hate crimes. Killer drove to my community, one of the safest communities in the nation for decades, one of the safest communities in the nation. He drove to my community in order to slaughter mexicans and immigrants. Store,walked into a deliberately targeting us. Kids, one of whom is in the audience, my daughter. And i have to worry about the color of my kid popped skin. Kids skin. Those who do not have to worry about hate crimes do not have to fear things like that. In this country, theres two things that we are talking about today, and it is so right that we are talking about both of them on the same day. I was afraid that this bill was going to get kicked over into tomorrow and i was hoping it would not. Because we do not just have a gun violence epidemic in this country. We have a hate epidemic in this country. It has been fueled over and over and over again with language that is racist and bigoted, language that is intended to divide the good people up this country, language that is intended to make us fear those who look differently, love differently, come from different places, language that has made us forget exactly what we have taught what we have been taught. One of my colleagues mentioned a quote about losing our moral center. We have lost our moral center when we no longer see human beings with dignity and grace. The dignity and grace that they were born with, when instead, we call them illegals or we look for ways to separate them, or we look for ways to target them. Well, my people, my community, has been targeted. We have had a target placed on our backs because of the color of our skin. That your folks are massacred, then i could be lectured about hate crimes and how we should dismiss them, and how they are meaningless. Hate crimes are not meaningless. The designation of them is not meaningless. This is about accountability. This is about Holding People accountable for the words that they say and the actions that they take, and i think my colleague thank my colleague for bringing this legislation forward. I thank my colleagues here today who are standing with people who have been targeted. Us to regainfor our moral high ground in this country is to begin reconnecting with our compassion and our humanity. And i support your bill, mr. Cicilline. Thank you. I yield back my time. [applause] the gentlelady yields back. Are there any further amendments . For what purpose has the gentleman from florida i yield. Thatwant to make sure there is no more mischaracterization of what i had to say. For me to advocate for the Death Penalty for the guy that went to el paso and killed all those innocent victims is hardly dismissive. Unfair. And you were not listening. To say any further would probably violate the rules of the quorum, and i am not going to do that. The people that commit Violent Crimes need to be punished, and i am someone who has punished them. Especially when victims were women, and that may shock some people. But to say that we are dismissive of people who commit Violent Crimes is just not accurate. They need to be punished. That is why i want the el paso shooter that killed those innocent people to be punished under texas law and not because i am dismissive, but because they hate crime law passed here does not do as much as the texas state law does to punish such evil perpetrators, so i needed to set the record straight. I want to yield back to my friend from florida. Does gentleman yield back. Not quite yet, mr. Chairman, if that is all right . I have to reject the notion that the thoughts in the mind of anyone that would commit these greetedacts would be any less by consequence of who they were shooting. I mean, i think about, you know, those kids in parkland, and i do not think they were targeted by , bute of their identity the person who killed them was no less evil than the person who committed those murders in texas that we are also sad about. I yield back. Anyone else seek recognition . Gentleman from arizona. Colorado, sorry. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I believe this legislation is flawed. Prosecutor, i am concerned about the effects this would have on the constitution. It is forwardlooking not only forward looking but rather looks backwards to long past convictions in order to impose additional consequences and rejected equal ideology. This is a very definition of an ex post facto law prohibited by the constitution. The fact that this bill applies retroactively raises serious constitutional concerns. If this bill applied only prospectively to future convictions, it would be a much on much firmer constitutional ground. I am concerned this bill is constitutionally vague. Hate crimes,t of this bill does not offer police , prosecutors, or judges clarity. These officials will have difficulty understanding which hate laws affect rights and due to a lack of hearings on this bill. I dont think we have any idea of the magnitude or scope of what this bill might be asking Law Enforcement or prosecutors to take on. This will make it difficult to enforce the law and likely impossible to ensure equal application of the law. The third concern i have with this bill is a practical consideration. It does not contain information about past misdemeanor convictions such as hate crimes. State, local, and tribal governments do not report this type of information. So this information does not exist in a meaningful way. To determine whether a conviction qualifies or reported probably not. So this information does not meaningful way. To determine whether a reportedn qualifies or probably not. Re the case files detailed determination . Tections some someone have . Is a long backlog. Applying this law will slow down Law Enforcement and prosecutors. Arings on t held he this legislation. Iry l this engages in inqu dont know ding we answers to this question. It. We shouldnt pass i yield back. Gentleman yields back. Those in favor say aye. No . Those in favor say aye. No. Sed, ayes have it. And clerk will call she votes aye. Miss garcia . She votes aye. Votes aye. Mr. Stanton votes aye. Votes aye. Miss escobar votes aye. Mr. Collins votes no. Chavez votes no. Mr. Gomer votes no. Mr. Jordan votes no. Votes no. Mr. Ratcliffe . Miss robie votes no. Mr. Gates votes now. Mr. Johnson of louisiana votes no. Mr. Biggs votes now. Mr. Mcclintock votes no. Lescowess cow miss votes now. Mr. Rosenthaler votes no. Mr. Klein votes no. Mr. Armstrong votes no. Votes no. Is everyone who wishes to vote voted . Report. Clerk will report. Mr. Chairman there are 23 , ayes and 15 nos. The ayes have it. Members . Members will have two days to submit views. The bill will be reported in a single amendment. Without objection, they are authorized to make changes. Cspans washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. Coming up wednesday morning, we will discuss the 18th anniversary of the 9 11 terror attacks with four members of congress. First, Mississippi Democratic congressman and Homeland Security chair bennie thompson. Then, Mississippi Republican congressman and Homeland Security member, michael guessed. Later, delaware democratic senator and Homeland Security Government Affairs Committee Member tom carper and Wisconsin Republican senator and Homeland Security governmental Affairs Committee chair, ron johnson. Join the conversation all ,orning with your phone calls facebook comments, and tweets. Be sure to watch cspans washington journal, live at 7 00 a. M. Eastern wednesday morning. Saturday, at 6 00 p. M. Eastern, on the civil war. The 1863 campaign in tennessee. Bragg orders everyone to concentrate. The rest of the campaign, after isy leave behind it somewhat anticlimactic. Because with rosecrans and manchester, he is ready to fight it out in the trenches. At 8 00, Emory University professor Deborah Liptak on her 1996 lawsuit against holocaust denier david irving. Argument of basic deniers. No plan, no 6 million, no leadership from hitlers, no gas chambers, and the last point, that this is all made up by jews. Eastern, ap. M. Discussion about shakespeares influence on u. S. Politics. At 6 00, on american artifacts, the Norman Rockwell museum traveling exhibit, on fdr and the four freedoms. Explore our nations passed on American History tv every weekend on cspan3. The House Judiciary Committee met to consider a number of gun violence prevention bills. Congress faces pressure to take action in the wake of recent Mass Shootings. In this portion, the Committee Debates socalled red flag legislation, which enables court orders to intervene and temporarily prevent someone who is in crisis from having access to a firearm. Mr. Nadler with would like to move on to these bills. People who are coming in, the same. You purpose to notice, i know call up h. R. 120, extreme Risk Protection order act of 2019. For purposes of markup and i move the Committee Report the bill favorably on the house. The clerk h. R. 1236 to support state, local and tribal access from individuals who are a danger to themselves or others pursuant to court orders for this purpose. Mr. Nadler without objection, the bill is considered read and open for amendment. I recognize myself for an opening statement. Last month, the country was rocked by news of Mass Shootings on two successive days in el paso, texas where 22 were killed and dayton, ohio, nine people were killed and 27 injured. A few weeks later, the gunman in odessa texas took the lives of seven people. 5 people were killed in Mass Shootings in Mass Shootings. The governors speech was called to do something. Today we will. This committee has passed two important gun safety measures. The background checks act and enhanced back grouped checks act. And they are being blocked in the senate by the republican. Today we consider three more measures that will prevent the tragic gun violence that has engulfed this nation. I want to emphasize we are not taking these actions simply to respond to Mass Shootings. It has been our motivation with respect to the Gun Safety Bills the committee has considered, we are reacting the gun violence whether Mass Shootings or not and whether or not they make national headlines. No single bill that will address all of these issues and we are considering three additional bills today. More than 35,000 americans lose their lives because of guns every year. Every day in america on average, 34 people are murdered with a firearm. Gun violence of this magnitude is an american problem. The countrytocountry comparison is shocking. N 2011, the United Kingdom had 147 deaths. In march of 71, japan, just 0. The United States more than 35,000. Even when you adjust for population differences, americans are discxds difficulties proportionately killed by gun violence. A recent study in the american scrourm of medicine, compared to 22 other countries, the murder rate in the United States is 25 times higher. The president and others try to pin blame on Mental Illness. We know the United States does not have a rate of Mental Illness that is 25 times higher than the rest of the woled. That is not the source of our gun violence crisis. We must approach this issue with a range of solutions and with a sense of urgency and cannot use Mental Illness as an excuse to do nothing real. The first gun safety bill we will consider, h. R. 1236, extreme Risk Protection order act of 2019 provides funding to states to enact statutes that empower Law Enforcement and families to petition courts to intervene when individuals pose a danger to themselves and others. This bill encourages states and localities to take meaningful steps to prevent gun violence while at the same time otecting the due protecting the Due Process Rights of those in crisis. States and localities are encouraged through funding assistance to pass laws to ensure court may issue a protective order and preventing people from purchasing firearms only after making a finding there is evidence that is demonstrated that the person poses a significant danger. The judge considering the petition from Law Enforcement or family members would authorize temporary firearms restrictions for up to 0 days. To stepped the length of the firearms restriction up to a year, the court must afford the firearm owner a full hearing ensuring Due Process Rights. H. R. 126 strikes an appropriate balance between protecting the rights of the gun owner and ensuring community safety. The amendment in the nature of a substitute will include rovisions based on h. R. 3076 introduced by the gentlewoman mrs. Mcbath. And Law Enforcement family members or household members. Inclusion of this is an acknowledgement that gun violence and Mass Shootings have no bounds. Every jurisdiction in this will country has been touched by gun violence. The federal provisions ensures access to courts and ensures continuity of enforcement across state lines. Federal courts have been bass tons of due process and the protections included in the federal provisions protect respondents Due Process Rights. The duration of an order issued to the proceeding contemplated in this bill during which annuity tral judge is limited to 14 days. During which the court will determine after a hearing including participation by the respondent if a longterm order is appropriate. Taken together, the provisions n h. R. 1236 have the federal Provisions Incorporated from an. 3076 provided means that individual exhibits dangerous behavior can be prevented. According to one study, 50 exhibited some warning signs. The combiped bill before us authorizes an individual who has serious concern that someone they know poses an extreme risk to take the action needed to save hives and prevent suicides. 17 states and district of columbia have passed these laws which have proven to be effective. In california, one study found that extreme Risk Protection orders were where there was concern of a mass casualty event. After connecticut enacted this law, the state experienced a 14 reduction in its firearm suicide rate in indiana, the number of icides deliped 7. 5 after it enacted its extreme Risk Protection order law. The bottom line is we know this law saves lives. We have witnessed the effectiveness in state after state. We need to take the steps that the American People demand. 90 of americans support support extreme Risk Protection laws. Today the committee has the opportunity to build on h. R. 8 and which also enjoys similar overwhelming support. I thank representatives who are championing this effort and introducing the critical provisions. And i urge all of my colleagues to support h. R. 1236 as will be amended by the amendment in the nature of a substitute. I recognize the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from georgia, mr. Collins, for his opening statement. Mr. Collins thank you for holding this markup today. And im concerned about addressing this important issue from addressing the incidents of Mass Shootings plaguing our urban communities. Work with you on sensible solutions. What im not willing to do is support legislation that will not do anything to make us safer and infringes on the rights and liberties guaranteed of our constitutions. All three of these bills just do that. We will be considering h. R. 1236. It may seem like a commonsense measure, it is far worthy. Five months ago in an interview, one of the statements that was given by the chairman and you said it to one of your papers, the time i was probably 12 years old was civil rights and due process and that has never changed. Im not sure what has changed, but the bill before us has due rocess problems. And the proceedings standards are not the only flaws in this bill. For a permanent order, the court must find that the preponderance of the evidence that the individual must have access to a firearm. We dont convict people for a preponderance of the evidence. And i urge the committee charged with protecting due possess and every constitutional right. Yet the effects of this bill continue to emerge. Once the court finds the person is too dangerous. Es it provide for inca passtation . O. Any other things that would allow thems. If they do this is a waste of time. H. R. 126 allows a person to petition to take away any person Second Amendment rights. There is no required nexus between the parties. They dont have to know each other. It is unthinkable this bill does president require a Law Enforcement to substantiate the claims and no penalties against making a false claim against anyone. These are a few of the myriad of problems that is found in this bill. I have heard statements from my colleagues that we would be willing to consider red flag legislation. The promise so flawed that not anyone is committed to looking. I have said this before, there are ways we have worked together in the past. This is not one of those, this is another issue in which the harm that is found here, not discussed probably as much today as will be is something that will begin work to as the chairman alluded to to make us feel better. But in the ent not help in those situations and in many ways could add to the problem and with that, i yield back. Mr. Nadler other Opening Statements will be included in the record. I recognize myself. The clerk amendment in the nature of a substitute to h. R. 1236 offered by mr. Nadler, strike mr. Allred after the enacting clause and insert the following. Mr. Nadler without objection, the amendment in the nature of a substitute will be considered. I will recognize myself to explain the amendment. Discussed in my opening statement, it adds provision introduced by the gentlewoman from georgia. These provisions authorize the issuance of a protective order by a federal court. In addition to a few other changes to the underlying bill, these provisions strengthen significantly the underlying legislation and i urge all members to support it. I now recognize the Ranking Member of the full committee, mr. Collins for any comments he may have in the amendment in the nature of a substitute. Mr. Collins i suppose it may be addressed in some of the due process issues that i raised. But im scratching my head over some of the amazement of what was just offered in the nature of a substitute. To 1236 allows for a judge order [indiscernible] if there is reasonable cause to believe that the individual has and access to a firearm. The amendment allows for such higher evidentiary standard. If they can receive grants, they are requiring the judge to make this or probable cause, im not sure and maybe well hear about it later, but this will lead to laws that will create incentive for those seeking protective orders. If they cant find a state, this amendment allows them to ask a federal court to issue them. When we look at the process to obtain extreme Risk Protection order, the amendments were made we cant say this was indiscernible] under the grant program, states would be allowed to allow anyone to petition for an order. Under the proposed federal process. May petition the court. Under the grant program, an order can be in effect for 0 days and be ordered based on the finding of reasonable relief. Under the federal process, it can only be for 14 days and based on the finding of probable cause. The court hold a longterm order hearing. The federal process would require counsel to be provided free of charge if they are nable to afford counsel. And the individual poses a danger of causing himself to himself. Under the federal process, a court must find by clear and convincing evidence that the individual poses a risk of injury to himself by possessing. For ammunition that the order is necessary to prevent. Under the grant program, the order can be in order. Under the federal process it would expire under 180 days. It does amaze me that we have set one set of standards and different sets in another. And i would simply suggest we go back to the drawing board and come up with a consistent proposal that doesnt cause confusion or as we said forum shopping. We are under immense pressure from folks to do something, but this now looks discxds difficulties jointed and creates bad policy and i urge a no vote and i yield back. Mr. Nadler the gentleman yields back. Are there any amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute. For what purpose does the gentlelady seek recognition . Ms. Lofgren i would like to strike the last word. Support this bill and the substitute that you have just introduced. As the chair of the California Democratic delegation, we are aware in the state of california that california has taken relief in so many gun violence in measures, one of which is the socalled red flag bills. And we know just from the statistics in Law Enforcement that there are people who really were in a bad place who shouldnt have been armed and the state procedures were used and the Public Safety was protected. So thats really important thing. We passed bills already and sent them to the senate. No one measure is going to solve every problem. But if we take a number of sensible steps, it will make people safer. And i think thats very important. I wanted to say a word about mr. Cash hall, because he took the lead to offer this bill. He was here earlier in the proceedings and had another and he is not a member of the committee and he took the lead to introduce this bill. And i want to give him credit for doing that. Too many of us have had situations where people in our districts were the victims of gun violence. Recently, my district in gilroy, california, was added to the long sad list of communities that experienced gun violence. And thats one of the issues and well get to the other bill later in the evening or perhaps tomorrow, but you cant do it statebystate. California in that case, prohibited the purchase of assault weapons and magazines and also restricts sales to people under 21. As much as i credit those states who have stepped up to make a difference. So i support the bill and the underlying bill, but i wanted to coleeg, mrs. Mcbath who is a leader and responsible r the substitute for the efforts that have been put in and with that, mr. Chairman. Would the gentlelady yield . Ms. Lofgren i yield to mr. Swalwell. Mr. Swalwell just to follow up on the point that you made about californias gun safety laws. Its often used against us. California has some of the toughest laws than new york and you hear it in illinois and people will cite the gun deaths in oak lapped, chicago, we are only as safe as the states around us. And recent study by a District Attorney found that in the last year, 2018, over half of the weapons used in the homicides was where the weapon recovered, the firearm came from outside the state primarily arizona and nevada. These bills seek to recognize that, we need to be safe everywhere. Ms. Lofgren i yield to the gentleman from maryland. Mr. Raskin i wanted to respond to my friend from colorado who in the last round of statements lobbed kind of a question in my direction saying he would hope i stand by the constitution on these bills as i did on the bill on total arbitration and i gladly accept that challenge. I take my lead in the heller versus district of columbia case where the Supreme Court said we can protect the core of the Second Amendment, selfdefense and having arrival, but does not give you the right to carry dangerous weapons and does not give the right to dangerous people or the negate the power of the state to have time place, manner and right. Every constitutional right is set of ned by a regulatory restrictions and police power of the states. Ms. Lofgren reclaiming my time. Mr. Raskin if you believe these are unconstitutional, you should say so. All of the Second Amendment is quite off point. I have an amendment at the desk. [applause] mr. Nadler the spectators in the audience, please refrain from showing approval or disapproval of remarks from here. Those are our rules, we appreciate the sentiment. I have an amendment at the desk. Lets go with strike the last word. Ms. Lesko mr. Chair if i could strike the last word. Mr. Chair and members, i really understand people that want us to do something after Mass Shootings. The thing is we need to work on a pipe 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 he and we wantp, to make sure we are not taking away peoples Constitutional Rights without due process. That is why i oppose this legislation. And i oppose it because, one, it lacks the due process protections i want to see before someone loses their Second Amendment rights. Two, it doesnt 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 peoples Second Amendment Constitutional Rights to be taken away through to ex parte orders. And they might not know. And d, once people are stripped of their rights, there is no way to earn them back in this bill. But i do believe we can Work Together on bipartisan legislation. Im from arizona. And our Republican Arizona governor had put forward through the senate a bill last year, 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 but allowed for emergency orders with notice to the individual and it allows people that did have their Second Amendment rights taken away, away to earn them back. With that, i yield back. Mr. Nadler for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition . Ms. Jackson lee strike the last word. Mr. Nadler the gentlelady is recognized. Ms. Jackson lee there isnt enough time to respond, but let e express my appreciation to those, whenever i see her and allows me to acknowledge jordan because that is how i first met her. And she was not a member of congress but a grieving mother of which she remains today and stand the mount ain i on. I came to congress a few years before columbine and we were in the same position as we are today. I heard the same arguments. I heard, lets wait. We dont have the proper procedure. And heard people talk about Mental Health. I was put on a Columbine Task force and it was clear that those young men had Mental Health concerns. Every governor that 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 Mental Health concerns. But in this substitute that is part of the chairmans mark, there is an array of issues dealing with evidence presented on the longterm orders, there is a hearing where 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 the sea of inaction and talk about what we can do, what we can 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 pile in to the states that do have laws. Same thing with washington d. C. , california. We are trying to acknowledge that the federal government has been deer electricity. The senate has been derl electricity in not passing the federal construct to save lives. I know you will hear from my colleagues, but the pain we are experiencing in states that have just experienced the devastation of gun violence from el paso to odessa and state officials in my state, Mental Health, Mental Health, red flag laws has been rejected and yes, this is an ar15. It lightwyatt and i have held it in my hand. While we pitterpatter around, someone can get this in their hands. Law enforcement will be at the other end of that balance while they are trying to protect the community. The ar15 was the choice of the killer in el paso. And it has been the choice of the killer in las vegas. The rounds that that individual had was unbelievable. If you would read the bill, there are due process provisions in this bill. And i thank the gentlelady from georgia for enhancing it through the federal construct that she needs. In the hearing i had last week, the summit that i had last week and all through this time, i will take note of the witnesses. None of them did i ask a political perspective what they are carrying in their pockets from chief medical exercise and doctors and 300 billion is being used to deal with gun violence and the death and pillage, nobody raised what Voter Registration card or who they are voting for, but they talked about the pain. Someone who organized the i am organization whose mother had she had to run to her room because they came and said, your brother who left out just a few minutes ago with his jordan shoes on has been shut dead. And went on with life continuing with her mother as a single parent and at 1, they came to get her out of the class and thought it had to do with her other studes. Guns people who have conditions, contribute to that. We have to do something and it has been to be federal law that does something. Mr. Nadler the gentlelady yields back. The gentleman from ohio. Mr. Jordan strike the last word. Mr. Nadler i think the gentleman from colorado is first. Mr. Jordan last year, we will have changed a fundamental and sacred principle in this country. In america, you are innocent until Proven Guilty today. If we pass, we 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. Who is the someone who can petition the court . Who is the someone to define . Under age 13, the chairman just. Family or household member go down to subsection d and individual who has resided with the respondent during the past year. A roommate who hung out with you one month last year can petition a court to take a way your Second Amendment liberties. Maybe the roommate didnt like you, thought you were a slob, can petition to take away your fundamental rights and guess what . When they go into courts to take away your fundamental liberty, and committed no crime, guess what . You dont get to be there. You dont get to defend yourself. That is what this bill does. And mr. Raskin has talked about the Second Amendment rights and thats how we are going to take away someones Second Amendment liberties. This is the House Judiciary Committee, for heavens sake. What constitutional right can you take away without doing anything wrong and petition the court to get it back. Tell me when that happens. This bill is so wrong on so many levels. It violates fundamental Second Amendment rights and Property Rights and Due Process Rights and yet today, the House Judiciary Committee, with the storied history this committee has in defending the bill of rights is going to pass this legislation . I mean this is a scary road to start heading down. We want to stop gun violence and we know it is terrible and evil, but trying to do something what this bill seeks to do in this manner is so fundamentally wrong and again, for the Judiciary Committee in the United States house of representatives 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. Would the gentleman yield . Mr. Chairman. R. Chairman. I move to strike the last word. Mr. Nadler the gentlelady is recognized. Thank you for calling this markup and take these life saving measures. Im proud we are holding a historic markup on extremist protection orders including my bill. Im proud to be cosponsor of h. R. 1236 led ms. Mcbath protection orders are life saving tools to firearms out of the hands out of those who pose ar danger. The bill we are marking up today will guarantee nationwide access to this critical tool. The extremist laws at the state and federal level, we can prevent Mass Shootings and suicides and horrific events that do not make the headlines. We are told we must accept gun violence and told no single ece of legislation can prevent. We must have more lockdown drills and more bulletproof glass. But we see time and time again, someone knew the shooter was the rer and had weapons or person was thinking of taking his own life. No one had a tool to do anything about it. Some states dieded their Law Enforcement officers, their communities and families deserve that tool. Thats why 17 states as was expressed earlier and the district of columbia passed extreme risk laws. These laws have had bipartisan support. They have been passed by state legislature controlled by republicans and democrats. They have been signed into law by governors across the political spectrum and they are saving lives. Today, we take the next step in preventing gun violence. This package provides an incentive for more safe capacities law. Support states that already have them and every community and every corner of this country has access to this lifesaving tool. Our Law Enforcement officers put their lives every day on the line. They deserve every tool we can give them to help keep our communities safe instead of fighting the horror. We can empower our Law Enforcement officers to disarm threats before a shot is fired before another life is lost. This legislation also empowers family and household members, those who are most likely to see the signs that a person is in crisis. My legislation gives Law Enforcement and family members a way to take action and prevent Mass Shootings and save the life of won who is considering suicide. 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 anyone in this room should ever be faced with that pain. And every single day that which fall and not taking action, mothers and fathers will live through the same nightmare that i did and many survivors that i worked with and every day we fail to take action, siblings and spouses will feel the same grief. It is our responsibility to prevent this suffering, to bring an end to this constant heartbreak. Inaction is unacceptable and today we are acting to help those in crisis. We act to empower Law Enforcement. And we act to empower the individuals who keep losing if we dont do something about this. And i thank my colleagues who have cosponsored this legislation and many advocates and survivors who continue to fight to End Gun Violence 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 nd supporting this legislation. We have to save lives. I yield back the balance of my time. Will the gentlelady yield . Mr. Nadler the gentlelady has yielded back. Who seeks recognition . The gentleman from arizona. Move to strike the last word. Mr. Nadler the gentleman is recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. The dialogue thats taking place oday, this is a serious issue. The gentleman, mr. Lesko and the gentleman from ohio, mr. Jordan, i want to appreciate that the gentlelady from california, ms. Lofgren, mentioned statistics and data. She mentioned the use of those. Mr. Biggs so the department of justice, put out a study earlier this year just in january of this year. This is important to realize because they found that 1. 3 , who had of prisoners committed a Violent Crime in this country obtained their goal from a retail source. Only 1. 3 . That means that it has an impact on whether the nics Background Check Program is going to work or be effective at all. 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 in the underground market, it isnt happening. The point is, and this is what i think we miss, is a lot of times, we think that were going to correct something, correct a problem, an we create legislation, and it leaves massive gaps because there are massive gaps in how these things take place. An additional study was conducted at the behest of president barack obama in 2013. He ordered the centers for Disease Control and prevention to assess existing research on gun violence and that report, compiled by the institute of medicine and the National Research council found, among other thing that firearms are used defensively hundreds of thousands of times a year. According to the c. D. C. , selfdefense can be an important crime deterrent and indeed it can be. Recent c. B. C. Reports suggest that actual defensive use of guns find consistently lower owning crimeof gun victims. In particular the ar15 that the gentlelady from texas mentioned. Let me tell you some times thats been used in selfdefense. Oswego, illinois, 2015. Man with an ar15 intervened in a knife attack against a neighbor. North carolina, 2018, a 17yearold successfully fought off three armed attackers with his a rferings15. Houston, texas, 2017. A homeowner survived a driveby shoot big defending himself with an ar15. Broken ar rowe, oklahoma, a homeowners son killed three wouldbe burglars with an ar15. Ferguson, missouri, an africanamerican protected a store from riotiers using an ar 15. 2013 in texas, a 15yearold used an ar15 to save the life of himself and his sister. I think sometimes in our zeal to try 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 tolerate turning what is a constitutional right on its head , turning the burden of proof on someone who has not committed a crime, telling them youll be found responsible or not responsible based on an exparte proceeding with or without your awareness of that ex parte proceed and proceeding and then youll have the pleasure of trying to set that aside at a future date if you will. Thats not the american way. With that, i ooppose the amendment and i thank the chairman and yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Nadler the gentleman yields back. Are there any amendments to the bill . Mr. Chairman. Mr. Nadler the gentleman from colorado. For what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition . I have an amendment at the desk. Mr. Nadler the clerk will report the amendment. Caller an amendment in the nature of a substitute to h. R. 1236 offered by mr. Buck of colorado. On page 22, line 5 and 10, strike and and insert the following between lines 10 and 11. Mr. Nadler the gentlelady from california reserves a point of order. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read. The gentleman is recognized in support of the amendment. Mr. Buck thank you, mr. Chairman. The evidence linking gangs and Violent Crime including gun violence is overwhelming. According to estimates gangs and gang members are responsible for upwards of 90 of all Violent Crimes in our country, nationwide, 80 of all gunrelated homicides in the must a typical year are gangrelated. In chicago there are over 100,000 gang members compared to 12,000 Police Officers. In the windy city a few years ago, gang members are responsible for 51 of all homicides. A homicide clearance rate for gunrelated deaths, meaning an arrest was made, is incredibly low. Only 17 ppt 5 of these cases in chicago result in an arrest. In chicago, criminals know theyll get away wit no wonder gun violence is so high. Chicago isnt alone. In baltimore, 88 of all killings last year were the result of gunfire and 84 of those killed had a criminal record with nearly half having themselves committed a Violent Crime. Baltimores homicide rate is on par with el salvadors. Nearly 56 murders per 100,000 people, higher than many of the worlds most violent countries. Bauments 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 gang and gun violence is common in many major cities. Despite the clear link of gang foss gun violence, democrats continue to support sanctuary city policies that protect gang members who are in our country illegally like members of ms13 or terrorizing our cities. N july, on july 21, Daniel Alejandro Alberto Cuellar was brutally murdered in maryland by seven people in a gangrelated murder. While cuellars murder was not gun 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 Crimes including gun violence in the United States is linked to gangs. My amendment is quite simple. It would allow the issuance of a red flag order against anyone whose name appears in a gang database if there was probable cause to include that individual in the database. We need to get guns out of the hands of violent criminals that 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 gun violence. Yield back. Will the gentleman yield . Mr. Buck i yield to the gentleman from georgia. Mr. Collins the standard, theres been concerns before about the gang list. This raises to the level of probable cause. If there is a standard here thats set, i appreciate the gentleman at least offering and maybing the standard of due process and also the standard of evidence here which we pointed out before is contradictory in this bill, at least this is a clear standard ta provides something somebody can do i appreciate you offering that standard. I yield back. Mr. Buck i yield to the gentleman from arizona. I thank the gentleman for yielding, appreciate his efforts to improve this bill. I want to bring in some more day tafment this is done with regard to, someone mentioned Police Officers on the other end. And so just a few years ago, 2013, 16,000 Police Officers from the level of a from the level of officer up to commander in chief responded to this survey. One question was what effect do you think a federal ban on manufacture an sale of some semiautomatic weapons, term by some as assault weapons, would have on crime. 71 said it would have no effect. They didnt believe it would have any effect. Do you think federal ban on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would an influence on Violent Crime . 96 said no do you think a federal law prohibiting the transfer of weapons between individuals would affect crime . 80 said no. Do you think making it illegal for to the use straw purchasers would have an impact on Violent Crime . 60 said yes. We need to be looking at that. Another vare, ill talk about a g. A. O. Report about how few, how few people who falsely try to get their firearms are prosecuted. Thats part of our problem. I yield back. Mr. Nadler the gentleman yield back. I recognize myself for five minutes in opposition to the amendment. The factors in the bill that are to be considered by the court in considering these applications are all behaviorally based. That is to say, theyre based on whether the person has engaged in recent threats or acts of violence with other people toward toward other people, toward himself, recent acts of cruelty to animal, ongoing abuse of controlled substance by the person, may consider other factors including a reckless use, display, or brandishing of a firearm. The amendment proposes a new ground which is not behaviorally based but associationally based. It says the factors to be considered is whether the pondents name appears on a a list of dangerous people, gang members. Maintained by any federal, state, local or tribal government Law Enforcement agency. Mber one, we know that these lists are often put together with no due process consideration. Theyre often inaccurate. Theyre not kept up to date. Thats not true of all departments but many lists that would be used here. They do not we do not have any indication of the reliability of any such lists with respect to any individual. All the other factors in the ill are basically recent observations that the respondent committed threats or acts of violence, teles or acts toward himself or others, acts of cruelty. In other words things that would indicate that this person is unstable or dangerous and that should be considered. Just the fact that someones name is on a database maintained by some department, a database of unknown accuracy and based on we dont know what, thats really a due process problem that some of these others are i oppose the amendment. Will the gentleman yield . Mr. Chairman . Mr. Nadler i oppose the amendment. The gentlelady from texas, for what purpose does the gentlelady seek recognition . I yield to the gentlelady from texas. Id like to say a couple of things about these databases. An experience we have had in my district in el paso as c. B. P. Have continued to separate families, they have used these databases as a resource and as the information found in them as a reason to separate children from parents. We have had case work that has demonstrated the flaws in these some of these databases where a father has been accused of being a gang member and we have discovered after much time spent with lawyers, actually the lawyers and lawyers have discovered problems with identity, confusion, similar names, people who have been denied their children as a result of this. Ms. Escobar i would just urge the committee, i know 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 a vote against this amendment. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Nadler reclaiming my time. I would simply add in addition to what ms. Escobar said, in addition to the experience we had, New York Times carried a story a few months ago about a 15yearold Central American immigrant who had been here for number of years who was in high school, observed doodling designs that some Police Officer thought was gang insignia and cons quebtly his name was put on a gang list and he was deported with total lack of due process. Id observe in addition to to everything ive said and ms. Khobar said about the lists, they are frequently, i shouldnt say frequently but they are ften enough, maybe frequently, racially discriminatory because there are no real enforceable standards. Therefore they should not be used as a predicate for this kind of proceeding. I yield to the gentlelady. I just want to say make a statement and ask a question. California has these databases and they finally stopped when they discovered that they had 3yearolds on the databases. Gang members. So some of these are reliable. A lot of them are not. Ms. Lofgren so i think the comments that have been made in opposition to the amendment are correct. On the other hand, if the author of the amendment, mr. Buck, were willing, mr. Buck, if youre willing to vote in favor of this bill 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 is, if this amendment is adopted, will you support this bill . This bill is so fatally flawed i think theres a lot of amendments that need to be adopted before this bill rises to the level where i think it guarantees basic Constitutional Rights in this country. But i will certainly consider that if you vote for this bill, i would actually consider that a step in the right direction. Ms. Lofgren my time has expired, i yield back. Mr. Nadler my time has extired. Mr. Collins move to strike the last word. Mr. Nadler the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Collins this is an interesting discussion, there was a discussion last year on no fly, no buy. Where it was shown to have the same problems that we just talked about. The list had senators, had members of congress, had others who were on this list yet it was taken then, weve got to take this list and got to accept this list because if we do that were making a statement. With no real inaccuracies or discussion. It is also interesting to me that however in this amendment offered by mr. Buck that the department, agency or administration had to have probable cause to identify the respondent that is on the list. Another step further than simply being on the list. The agency had to show probable cause that the person is supposed to be on the list. If were really, the discussion here is also, the chairman made the comment that this is a behavioral list, not an associational list. If we want to consider what it takes to become a gang member in many of these . This is not just associational but behavioral. This is not a joke. This is the problem we have here that needs serious answers, Serious Solutions and serious discussion without saying simply because we dont like lists were not going to include it in the list. No i will not vote for this because of the many problems that i listed beforehand in this bill. That are a legitimate attempt, i make no bones ability the attempt but its the wrong attempt. As we look at this, to bar this amendment from not Going Forward if its not behavioral listed takes us to the heart of what gang members do how do you get into the gang to start with is typically violence, behavioral and typically shown to be the very thing that this bill is purporting to do. If we really wanted to get into some of these lists we talked about as being so bad why dont we put the standard in every one of these lists of probable cause . Why dont we raise the standard and put the lists into an area we can determine that somebody should actually be there instead of getting on there as weve seen by mistake. Its amazing to me, we had a large blowup on the floor of the house about the no fly, no buy list which was shown to have issued but at that point nobody brought those from the other side brought this concern. Now were bringing it as a concern. Again, when this bill this amendment actually puts probable cause to identify the respondent as a member of the gang it is a little bit concerning to me that were blowing this into a different proportion to say that its not behavioral so we dont want it, its associational, i think theres a lot of problems. With that, i yield to the gentleman gentleman from colorado. Thank you. Appreciate my friend from georgia and 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 is an action. Wearing blue shoe laces is an action. You choose to put certain things on, to display. When you wear a tattoo or you go and get a tattoo that says 13 you are making a statement to the world. And it is an action. When you are getting that tattoo and when you display that tattoo. When you show gang signs to other people thats an action. Mr. Nadler will the gentleman yield on that point . Mr. Buck briefly. Mr. Nadler when you write 13 on a piece of paper maybe its a sign. Maybe youre doodling because its the 13th of june. Mr. Collins reclaiming my time on this one. Probable cause if taken properly is not 13 on a doodle pad, mr. Chairman. That is not an argument that actually frankly makes sense here. Because this amendment actually says probable cause. So to say that im writing here 13, i may be writing circles here because i think were wasting time but that doesnt mean i have a problem. It means im bored. Now thats what probable cause would do. Theyd have to look and say should by on that list or should i not . I think thats the concern here. Youre splitting a hair that doesnt exist. Would the gentleman yield . Mr. Buck this goes beyond west side story and the jets and sharks. This is a situation where the Police Officers are trained and there are very identifiable signs and it isnt just one sign. It isnt just someone writing the number 13 in school. This is a series of this is a threshold that has to be met and 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 were serious about combating violent acts we should start with that kind of probable cause finding. Mr. Nadler will the gentleman yield for a question . Under this amendment if this amendment were adopted, and a court were considering an application for one of these orders and it had various pieces of evidence in front of you one of which was included a name on a list maintained by some department. Would it have to conduct a collateral inquiry as to whether that department had probable cause to put the persons name on the list . Mr. Buck what would happen in this situation is the officer involved would present to the court an affidavit. And the affidavit would say this individual is dangerous for these reasons. And then the that affidavit would say this individual has a gang membership as evidenced by a confession, a color, a tattoo, an association, a on and on. And that that evidence would be the probable cause for this particular element of violence. If were trying to stop Violent Crime lets go after those that commit the Violent Crime. Mr. Nadler the gentlemans time has expired. The gentlelady from texas. No. Im sorry. The gentleman from georgia. Mr. Collins thank you, mr. Chairman. I move to strike the strike the last word. Mr. Nadler the last word is stricken, the gentleman is recognized. I rise in opposition to this amendment. This is common sense legislation that goes to protect society and protect those who would be a anger to themselves. I want to commend representative mcbath for her diligence and her work in crafting this legislation along with representative carbajal. Mr. Johnson this is meaningful legislation. It would mark a crucial step toward addressing our countrys tragic suicide epidemic. In 2017, over 47,000 americans guyed by suicide and more than died by suicide and more than half of these included the use of a firearm. This marks the 31 increase in suicide since 2001. When 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 extreme risk laws and establishing a federal extreme risk law, the family and friends of those considering suicide could be educated on an effective lifesaving resource. However if we are to require our federal court system to implement extreme risk pr text orders and place the onus on them to enforce these, we must ensure 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 seek justice in their own courtrooms. In fact, in 2019, the judicial conference recommended that the Northern District of georgia hire at least one additional permanent judge to alleviate the burden on current judges. Additionally, the work load of magistrate judges has increased since 2014 with an 8 increase of total matters disposed of by 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 down after january 18. H. R. 1236 is vitally important and would take crucial steps to save the lives of people who are suffering and might be a danger to themselves. However, we cannot expect it to be as effective as it could be if we dont ensure our federal court system 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. And we also will need to ramp up our funding for the federal 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