Mr. Buck yes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. My amendment specifically amends the bill in front of us. It doesnt ask another committee to take it up. Number one. Number two, it talks about risk factors that are included in our bill specifically page 22 of our bill and makes sure that a veterans use of a a veterans use of a firearm previously is not considered a risk factor because that veteran was serving his country and had authority to use that weapon. I want to make sure we are protecting veterans and it is i believe germane to the underlying bill that were considering. Mr. Nadler im prepared the chair is prepared to rule on the point of order. The chair rules the point of order is well taken, the bill is not im sorry, the amendment is not within the jurisdiction of the committee, although it amends this bill, any amendment obviously would amend this bill, it requires actions to be taken by the department of Veterans Affairs under fitele 38 and we have under title 38 and we have no jurisdiction over title 38 or the department of Veterans Affairs, we cannot adopt an amendment to a bill which requires various action by the department of Veterans Affairs. Consequently the amendment is out of order. Re there further amendments . The gentleman from ohio. 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 to h. R. 1236. Mr. Chairman i ask that the moment be considered as read ms. Lofgren i reserve a point of order. Mr. Nadler the gentlelady reserves a point of order. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. The gentleman is recognized for ive minutes. One of the massacres happened in el paso, texas, and the other of course happened in dayton, ohio, which is less than 30 miles from my congressional district. Mr. Chabot first and foremost we should recognize these tragedies and pray for all the families in dayton and el paso and throughout the nation who had a loved one killed at the hands of senseless murderers. Although im a firm advocate of Second Amendment rights, i also believe that firearms should not be in the hands of criminals or those with Mental Illnesses like those who took the lives of so many this past august. One way we can accomplish this is to ensure that the nics system is accurate, up to date and is properly checked to make sure that individuals who are in the database cannot obtain a firearm. In my home state of ohio, they are working to accomplish just that. On the face of this legislation, it seems as if the majority is attempting to also make sure that individuals who shouldnt have a gun cant obtain one with their red flag law. However, its not without its flaws. I was an attorney in southwest ohio and i served in this committee since i was elected to congress 23 years ago. So i, like so many other colleague, sitting on both ends of this dais, understand the importance of due process. Unfortunately, this legislation as drafted fails to protect the due process of everyday, hardworking, lawabiding gun owners. This legislation is flawed because it provides federal grants to states to enact red flag laws that could deprive a person of a right to poss firearms before a hearing where the gun owner has notice and is given an opportunity to participate. As you all know, due process is fundamental to the very existence of our nation. And for this red flag law to have such a low evidentiary standard illustrates that democrats dont seem to care much about the Constitutional Rights of american citizens. This bill as written only requires that state courts find by a preponderance of the evidence that an individual poses a danger to himself or others before taking their guns away. Their legislation also states that the order of protection can exist in perpetuity as ordered by one judge. Even then it appears it can be done ex parte or without the jodge or the knowledge or participation of the individual subject to that order my amendment is simple and protects the Due Process Rights of lawabiding citizens with want to exercise their Second Amendment rights. It ensures that the applicant must show with clear and convincing evidence that the respond respondent poses a substantial risk of unlawfully using a firearm to cause death to hymn or herself or others. If a state court should find that the respondent does it cannot issue an order for more than 21 days during which time the respondent is evaluated to determine if he or she has a mental8ness. Additionally before an ex parte order the applicant must swear under oath under penalty of perjury the respendent should not be in posofingse a firearm. If the court orders they should not be in posofingse aim a firearm that order must be reviewed annually. This will help to keep the guns out of the hands of fennelly unstable individuals. I urge my colleagues to adopt this commonsense amendment to help make our communities safer while allowing lawabiding americans to continue to exercise their Second Amendment rights and without jeopardizing their Due Process Rights. With that, i yield back. Mr. Nadler i yield the gentleman yield back. Yield myself five minutes ms. Lofgren i withdraw my point of order. Mr. Nadler the gentlelady withdraws her point of order. I yield myself five minutes in opposition to the amendment. The bill discusses behavior. Were here today to discuss behavior not to Stigmatize Mental Health disability. Specific behavioral indicators of dangerousness are far more reliable predictors of future violence than Mental Illness which is why extremist laws prevent access to firearms by persons exhibiting dangerous behavior regardless of diagnosis. Most people with serious Mental Illness such as schizophrenia or bipolar dised orerer never violent toward others. Past violent behavior is the best predictor of future vines regardless of diagnose. Other factors include alcohol or sub stauns abuse an reckless firearm behavior which is why these orders are based on these factors. While Mental Illness such as depression increases the risk of suicide not all individuals with a Mental Health diagnosis will become suicidal. Prior suicide attempts, threats of suicide, risky alcohol or Substance Abuse an recent acquisition of firearms are the behaviors that must underlie any erpo issued. To substitute Mental Illness criteria for behavioral criteria is the wrong direction and is not borne out by experience or evidence. And would greatly stigmatize Mental Illness and lessen the effectiveness in preventing firearms violence. Accordingly i urge defeat of the amendment. Who seeks recognition . Mr. Chairman. Mr. Nadler the gentleman from olorado. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I agree with the chairman and certainly oppose this amendment, i believe the amendment undermines and ultimately weakens the underlying bill. But i again want to go back to the core of why were here and why we ought to Work Together to pass this important proposal. Theres a gentleman in my state of colorado by the name of tom sullivan. Tom sullivan tom sullivan is a state representative who represents his districtable in colorado. He also district honorably in colorado. He also happens to be someone whose family has been directly impacted by gun violence. In 2012, on july 20, tom lost his son, alex, in the aurora theater shooting. Alex turned 27 that evening. And tom and his wife lost him forever. I know that i cant begin to fathom, to describe the agony that they have experienced as a family at the loss of alex. But they, like our colleague, representive mcbath, who continues to inspire so many of us, they turned that sorrow and that anguish into action. And tom over the course of the last seven years has become a champion for gun violence prevention. He was elected, as i said, to the state legislature. And earlier this year in colorado he succeeded, thanks to his leadership, working with our governor and the state legislature in enacting a red flag law that is very similar to the law that we are debating tonight. As a country, as a people, and as a congress, i believe we have to take action. For toms family and for families of countless others who have been so tragically impacted by gun violence. And i know that my colleagues on this side of the aisle earlier throughout this debate have referenced this notion that we need to pursue bipartisan solutions. It bears mentioning that there are two republican cosponsors on this bill. It bears mentioning that in colorado, in a poll that was conducted this summer, 60 of republicans support red flag laws. So, if my colleagues are serious about addressing gun violence, about addressing suicide, colorado happens to be the 10th highest rate of suicides in the United States. 50 of those involve a firearm. If my colleagues are serious about that, i would hope that they would join us tonight in supporting this bill so that we can finally do something about the pervasive gun violence that is raving aning community as i cross our country ravaging communities across our country. With that, i yield back the alance of my time. Who seeks recognition . Ok. The gentlelady from georgia im sorry. For what purpose does the gentlelady from georgia seek recognition . Mrs. Mcbath thank you, madam chair. I move to strike the last word. Recognized for five minutes. Mrs. Mcbath thank you very much. Id like to address amendments that add Mental Health as a factor to consider when determining whether to issue. I understand the desire to address Mental Health. That is the reason why i sit on the Mental Health caucus. As a member of the Mental Health caucus, its very important to me that laws continue to be a vital tool in helping people that are in crisis. Including but not limited to those that are subject to having a Mental Illness. However, adding Mental Health as a factor could actually do more harm than it will do good. Stigmatize Mental Health, it could even prevent people from getting the treatment that they need for fear that it could affect their own ability to own a gun. The truth is that most people with Mental Illness are never violent towards others. In fact, theyre more likely to be victims of violence themselves. According to a 2015 study in the anles of epidemiology, only 4 of violent acts in the United States are attributable to Mental Illness. Rather, stigmatizing meble illness, we need to rather than stigmatizing Mental Illness we need to focus on evidencebased risk factors for violence, and those are factors already included in this bill, for a judge to consider when issuing an extreme risk protective order. And these include recent threats, recent violence violent acts, reckless use of a firearm, and Substance Abuse. When the Senate Judiciary committee had their hearing on extreme risk laws earlier this year, chairman graham invited ron hornberg of the National Alliance on Mental HealthMental Illness. He testified that extreme risk laws should be based on individualized assessments rather than stereotypical assumptions about specific groups of people that are not grounded in evidence. And i really couldnt agree more. I urge my republican colleagues to listen to the witness invited to testify by senator graham and reject these efforts to stigmatize those with Mental Illness. We must take an evidencebased approach to keeping people safe. And look at genuine indications of violence. For that reason, i oppose this amendment. I yield back the balance of my ime. For what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition . Mr. Langevin i move to strike the last mr. Cicilline i move to strike the last word, madam chair. The gentleman is recognized. Mr. Cicilline thank you. I rise in opposition to the amendment. I want to make a couple of points. Number one, theres been a lot of discussion this afternoon, this evening, about the absence of due process and the fact that theres a constitutional right at issue here, the Second Amendment being somehow infringed upon. I want to associate myself with the distinguished gentleman from maryland who reminds us in the heller decision, the United StatesSupreme Court acknowledged the right of the government, both the state and federal governments, to impose reasonable restrictions. This isnt a limitless right to possess firearms of any kind, any time, anyplace you want. And in fact, the legislation that is before us includes important due process protections. On page seven is a notice in due process section which says the individual named in an application for an extreme Risk Protection order as described in subparagraph a shall be given written notice of the application and an opportunity to be heard on the matter in accordance with this section. That is classic due process. Notice and an opportunity to be herd. Second point i want to make heard. Second point i want to make is that with respect to the ex parte order, the standard of proof in that is probable cause. This is on page 16. A court may issue an ex parte order only upon a finding of probable cause to believe. So what this legislation is designed to do is when an individual, a Family Member finds out or discovers that someone is about to have access to a firearm, that is somehow reflecting some danger to themselves or the community, think of an example. Hearing that someones going to take a gun and go shoot up a school. Right now theres no mechanism to stop that from happening. Theres no mechanism to go to a court and say, this person is a danger to themselves and others. Theyre going to do something that will result in the terrible loss of life. Thats exactly what this bill provides. A vehicle to do that. In a really responsible way. With notice, with an opportunity to be heard, with a higher standard of probable cause and an ex parte proceeding. And while theres a lot of discussion about the Second Amendment and the constitutional right. Let me remind my friends on the other side of the aisle, theres a constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. My constituents have the constitutional right to take a walk in the park with their grandchildren, be protected from gun violence. They have a constitutional right to worship in a synagogue or a church and be free from being gunned down. Those are also important liberties and freedoms that we have a responsibility to protect. And i think on balance this bill does exactly the right thing. It protects those freedoms and those liberties with reasonable procedures to protect people from someone who has exibbletted an intention to hurt themselves or others by use of a fire a. We have got to do firearm. We have got to do something. The American People are sick and tired of seeing news accounts and seeing people in their own communities that have been ravaged by gun violence. And by the way, we should remember that the magnitude of gun violence in america is staggering. On average 136,000 americans are shot each year. Totaling more than a million in the last decade. Over the last few years our country has lived through the deadliest Mass Shootings in modern american history. And as the chairman said, americans are 25 times more likely to be killed in a gun homicide than residents of other highincome countries. 25 times more likely. We have a responsibility to do something about that. We ought to look at the example of new zealand. It took one mass shooting, fueled by hate before action was taken, yet weve had more than 293 Mass Shootings this year alone. More shootings than there have been days in the year. And we should say never again, but tragic and preventable shootings have become the new normal. We have a responsibility to do something. Were not going to pass legislation thats going to eliminate gun violence in its entirety. But we can pass a series of bills, when taken together, can significantly reduce gun violence in this country and protect our constituents from the violence and the horror and the loss of what occurs during these kinds of gun massacres. So i urge my colleagues to support this. Ms. Collins would the gentleman yield . Thank you. Look, i get your passion for this. Youre going to vote for it. Im not even going to take up the fact that we believe in constitutional right to life on a lot of different subjects, were not going to go there. But i have a point to make about your discussion of standards. That is not the standard you stated is not the standard for the entire bill. The standard is found under the federal standard. Not the state Grant Program. State Grant Program is still, it says on page nine, line three, the court finds theres reasonable cause or make the finding under a higher standard. So its not all protected under a probable cause standard. I understand the gentlemans passion, i understand what he wants but there needs to be at least pointed out mr. Cicilline the ex parte provision is the provision that has the probable cause standard. Which makes sense because if someone doesnt have a right to be heard, it makes sense that you heighten the standard to probable cause. Ms. Collins [indiscernible] i yield back. Mr. Cicilline i yield back, madam chair. The ge