never rent formp president, it would be a private matter. he waited for the payoff because he is cheap. pay because he did not to lose the presidency when he was winning primaries. host: we have to leave it there. we are just about to go to the house. catherine from georgia, go ahead. caller: the republicans performed their usual lockstep programed role as dictated by their leaders. each representative viciously attacked cohen as a liar and a cheat whose veracity is zero. not one asked pruitt of questions, and a certain not one carries a -- here's a l -- cares a lick about trump's constant line. host: last call. we have been talking about the cohen testimony in the korean

summit. you can go to our website at c-span.org. now we take it to the house of representatives. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. february 28, 2019. i hereby appoint the honorable judy chu to act as sro tempore on this day. signed, nancy pelosi, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. eternal god to whom we see what we could be and what we can can become, thank you for giving us another day. with so many dramatic and

contentious hearings in these days, grant wisdom, knowledge, and understanding to all members of the people's house, as well as an extra measure of charity. give them peace and an abundance of prudence in the work they do. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory, amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house her pproval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the the gentlewoman from massachusetts seek recognition? >> madam speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, i demand a vote on the speaker's approval f the journal. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. so many as are in favor say aye.

those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from massachusetts seek recognition. >> madam speaker, i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and make a point of order a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson. mr. thompson: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain up to five requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle.

for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition. >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one inute. >> madam speaker, i rise today to deliver a message from my district. a message i have heard in my town halls and from my neighbors throughout burlington and ocean counties. health care costs are too high. and we need to act now. that's why i'm proud to introduce the save act. this is bipartisan legislation that would help states establish state-based exchanges that would increase access and drive down costs. mr. kim: these are solutions that he we know work. states with state-based exchanges have higher enrollment rates and more affordable coverage. right up their

own exchanges, that's tens of millions of people, including millions of people throughout new jersey, who stand to benefit. it's time to listen to our constituents and help them save. i hope you'll join me in acting and moving this legislation forward. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: madam speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minutes. mr. thompson: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, as we close out the month of february i want to recognize this month as national african-american history month. as a way for a country to remember and honor african-american citizens and events that shaped our nation's history. it's also a chance to reflect on the countless contributions made by african-americans while many were faced with racial prejudice, segregation, and slavery. these individuals serve as examples of patriotism and determination.

ey have gen peopl of l backgronds curage in theelves, faithin their drams,ndhope in hers e arican sry ifilled itafrican-amics w foreve cnged their commuties an r country. we te tis month t cleate theultural, senfic, potica and economi coributio they havead for e beerment our nation. we he learne fm the pa o tetr wean bld a bett future for al citizen we procla fbruary as afcan-ercan month, l u celebratehe lives, underandheir divsity, and ad btheir emples. thank you, mampeak. yielback thealance ofy ti. speaker o empore: he spear prtempore:or whapurpe does t ntlewoman omassauset seek rogtion? >>i ask unanous const to address e house for on minute. revi and extd myemar. the speer po tempor >> madam speaker, i rise today with a great sense of urgency. every day it seems like there is another news story about a shooting in a school, movie theater, a synagogue, or city block. we have lost far too many lives due to gun violence.

from my own community i celebrate the life of olivia from whose mother endured years of domestic abuse. in 2010 she survived her husband's brutal attack but lost her beautiful olivia when her husband shot and killed her and then killed himself. this tragedy devastated our whole community and as a mother, this loss still fills me with grief and anger. today jody keeps her daughter's memory alive, educates women on domestic violence, and fights for tougher gun laws. we must answer america's call for action on gun violence. not the gun lobby's call to maintain the status quo. yesterday we passed universal background check legislation, a necessary first step, to tackle gun violence in america. i urge my colleagues to continue voting for these critical reforms. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore:

without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, i rise here this morning to speak out against the extreme priorities of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. with so many pressing issues facing the 116th congress i find it appalling that h.r. 1 has been reserved for legislation that completely undermines the democratic framework of our country. simply put, this bill is nothing more than a thinly veiled power grab through more government, more regulation, and political speech repression. to call this legislation the for the people act is borderline ludicrous. h.r. 1 would eliminate state's authority to set voting qualifications, restore voting rights of convicted felons, even if it contradicts state or local policy. outlaw voter verification, and force taxpayers to subsidize anonymous donations, even if it's for a candidate they do not support. and this is just the tip of the

iceberg. h.r. 1 is not for the people but rather an attempt to expand power to federal bureaucrats and un-elected federal judges, underwut cutting the will of everyday citizens anti-constitution. mr. allen: this is not reform it's a shameless attempt to keep one party in power and the american people deserve bert. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. everyone deserves to feel safe in their community whether they are at work, at home, at school, or at church. miss underwood: less than two weeks ago, five people, four of whom were my constituents, left their homes for work at the henry pratt company in aurora, illinois, and never returned. their lives were taken by a horrific act of gun violence. i am committed to honoring the lives of the victims of gun violence through action.

h.r. 1112 is a common sense and bipartisan bill that would help address a deficiency in background check laws by allowing lomplete to conduct a thorough background check. i am proud to co-sponsor an amendment that will help ensure this legislation, improve the safety of victims of domestic violence, necessaryic abuse, dating partner -- domestic abuse, dating partner violence, sexual assault, and stalking. yesterday was the first time in more than two decades that the u.s. house of representatives passed a major gun safety bill and today we have an opportunity to take a further step. h.r. 1112 will help save innocent lives and i look forward to working on commonsense legislation that balances protecting our gun rights and ensuring the safety of our communities. madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute.

>> i rise today in recognition of the chairman of the conservative party of new york and my good friend, mike long, who stepped down from this position after decades of service. ms. stefanik: mike was born m brooklyn, new york, and raised in southern queens. in 1959, mike long dropped out of the 12th grade to enlist in the united states marine corps. he felt strongly that his duty was to our country. that commitment to sacrifice and service above self is a common thread throughout chairman long's life. he served on the new york city council for a term representing brooklyn, and he stepped up to become chairman of the conservative party, a position he held for 30 years. which is a testament to his character, commitment, work ethic, and determination to stand up for his principles. he is a lifelong advocate for limited government, economic freedom, and opportunity. constitutional liberties, and improving the lives of everyday hardworking new yorkers. he is one of the rare political

leaders in new york who has earned deep respect from both his political allies and his political opponents. i am proud to count him as a true friend and i want to thank him, his wife, his family for his lifetime of service to new york state and the united states of america. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from missouri seek recognition? >> thank you. i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. mrs. hartzler: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to congratulate police chief lynn wolford of the ashland, missouri police department for being voted america's favorite crossing guard. she was recently slekted the winner of coin test sponsored by safe kids worldwide, a nonprofit organization that works on behalf of families and communities to keep children safe from injuries. as a result of this competition, the ashland school district will receive $10,000 to improve pedestrian safety.

she can be seen every day guarding intersections near ashland schools to make sure that children get across the road safely. and the children, many of whom along with their parents, voted for him online love him. it is not usual to see chief would ford wearing colorful hats and outfits as he guides the children safely across the road. it might be a bright chicken hat or a multicolored parrot hat. no matter the hat the mission is the same, to brighten the children's day and see they get to school safely. through his actions, the children have a community role model and a beloved friend in their local police department. ashland police chief lynn would ford epitomizing the service of s, law enforcement official congratulations, you truly are making a difference. i yield back. -- the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to

address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. today during black history month i rise to celebrate rita smith wadell, a leader in my community in lancaster. she passed away last month by her impact will be felt in our community forever. she was a fierce leader on social justice issues and racial equality in our community. her life can can best be described as a life of service and a life of compassion. she served as elector, eucharist particular minister, and social justice committee member. she was always trying to lighten the road for others and lend a helping hand. rita saw those in need and recognized if she had the power to give, she would. and even if it wasn't in her power, she would try anyway. rita was a long time university professor of psychology and african-american studies and founded the school's

african-american studies minor. i'm very happy to celebrate her life today. mr. smucker: we will miss her in our community. we'll miss her contributions to our community. with that, madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from new york general leave? mr. nadler: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and xtend their remarks and insert extraneous material on h.r.

1112, the the enhanced background checks act of 2019. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 145 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 1112. the chair appoints the gentlewoman from illinois, ms. underwood, to preside over the committee of the whole. the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 1112 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to amend chapter 44 of title 18, united states code, to strengthen the background check procedures to be followed before a federal firearm willee may transfer to a person that is not a firearm

willee. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time. the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, and the gentleman from georgia, mr. collins, will each control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: thank you, madam chair. madam chair, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: madam chair, i'm pleased that today we are considering h.r. 1112, the the enhanced background checks act. yesterday, the house passed h.r. 8, the bipartisan background checks act, an important bill to expand our national firearms background check system to include virtually all gun transfers. however, there are also steps we can take to make the current background check system more effective at blocking the sale of guns to individuals who are ineligible to purchase and possess them. that is why i support h.r. 1112, a bill that addresses a dangerous shortcoming in the current firearms background check law. in most cases, a license gun dealer receives notification within a few minutes. often 90 seconds from the

national instant criminal background check system, sometimes called the nics, that a perspective buyer has passed or failed a background check. in a small percentage of cases, nics examiners may need additional time if information is missing or unclear in a perspective buyer's record. for example, there may be on the record a notation that the buyer, the perspective buyer was arrested but no notation as to whether the buyer was acquitted or convicted. that would have to be looked into further. however, under current law, a licensed gun dealer conducting a background check on a perspective purchaser is permitted to sell the firearm if there is nothing from nics after three business days even if they have not indicated if they passed the background check. we refer to this as a default transaction. these are the cases that ought to be investigated. in 2017, the a.t.f. determined that over 4,000 default proceed

transfers went to purchasers who should not have lawful gotten them because they could not lawfully get them. if there is no report after three days, there is real cause for concern. one notable example of the tragic consequences of this loophole is the hate crime murder of nine people at the emanuel african episcopal church in charleston, south carolina, in 2015. in that tragedy, the shooter was not legally allowed to possess a firearm as a result of drug charges, but he still was able to purchase his gun from a license dealer who made the decision to transfer after three business days that lapsed despite not having received a definitive response from the background check system. the bill before us today, h.r. 1112, would strengthen the background check procedures federal firearm licensees ordealers must do before selling a firearm. they must wait for an answer

from nics that is extended from three days to 10 days. if after 10 dates nics has not returned an answer to the dealer, the perspective purchaser may file a petition with the attorney general which. if an additional 10 days lapses without a response from nics, the license firearms dealer then may sell or transfer the firearm to the perspective purchaser without the background check completion. if the dealer -- if the dealer has no reason to believe that the purchaser's prohibited from obtaining a firearm under federal, state, or local law. additional time for checks to be completed will help prevent the transfer of guns to individuals who are ineligible to possess them and will make us safer. i want to remind everyone, in 90% of the cases, the nics system gives the answer within 90 seconds. so we're talking about a small number of cases, but a number f cases where we know that have tragic results and we want to stop that. i want to commend our

colleague, jim clyburn, the distinguished democratic whip, for introducing this bill which addresses a shortcoming in current law. therefore, i ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill today. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. collins: thank you, madam chair. here we go again. just like yesterday, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted to criminalize the transfer of a firearm between two law-abiding citizens. today, the further bill -- the interest they're bringing autopsy bill that would prohibit law-abiding citizens from ever being able to acquire firearms and that's not hyperbole, madam chair. it's fact. let me walk you through how that would happen. allow me to explain that you would walk through the mechanics of this legislation. let's start at the beginning of the month. assume i went to a federally firearm license, f.f.l., to purchase a firearm on friday, february 1, of this month. under this bill, the nics system has 10 business days to respond to the f.f.l.

the 10th business day is a friday, february 15. if after those 10 business days nics does not ok the transfer, i must file a petition with the department of justice certifying i have no reason to believe that i am prohibited by federal, state, or local law from purchasing or possessing a firearm. once that petition is filed, the nics system has an additional 10 days to make a determination. that would be monday, march 5, in our example, because february 18 was a federal holiday and not a business day. if after the conclusion of 20 business days nics does not deny the transfer i could then acquire the firearm. but wait, madam chair. under existing law nics background check is only valid for 30 calendar days. the date it is initiated under our example would be saturday, march 2, which is two days before my petition is required to be acted upon. at that point, i would be

required to start the process over again entirely. there could be no end to this cycle. now, i'm not sure if h.r. 1112 was written this way out of just messed up writing or malice. i'm not sure. but it does do this. and there's no mistaking what is written. as i said many times, we do not vote on aspirational ideas in this chamber. they're great to debate, but we don't vote on aspirational ideas. we vote on words on paper and words on paper are just as i have described. i will let the american people determine what the intent was here. however, as i noted yesterday, in the rush to put this to the floor, they did not bother to fix some several major issues. we also know, as we go forward in this, there is indefinitely and perpetual delay to the transfer of firearms to law-abiding citizens is perhaps the intent of this bill.

keep in mind under current law the f.f.l. has the option to transfer the firearm after three business days unless the transfer has been denied by nics. i would contend three business days is instant and a month is anything but instant. particularly aztec nolings continue to advance. -- as technologies continue to advance. carol brown had a restraining order against her ex-boyfriend. he stabbed her to death while she was waiting to legally protect herself. let that sink in. this bill would empower abusers and violent predators by making their victims more vulnerable. madam chair, we oppose this legislation. it doesn't make sense in its current form. it will do nothing to make our communities safer but it will make it harder for law-abiding citizens to exercise their second amendment rights and defend themselves and their families. madam chair, i am not often going to be able to say this, but i am joined today by the ucla who is opposing this bill

-- aclu who is opposing this bill and scoring against this bill. it's not ready for primetime. it's ready to go back to actually have hearings and actually do markups and actually work with this bill. i appreciate the gentleman, especially, from south carolina's intent. no one fights stronger for his constituency than the gentleman from south carolina. this is just not the right piece of legislation at the right time for the reasons that i spoke of that have nothing to do with the intent. it has everything to do with words on paper. and remember, madam chair, that's what we vote on, not aspirational ideas. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: i now yield seven minutes to the distinguished democratic whip, the gentleman from south carolina, mr. clyburn. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. clyburn: thank you, madam

speaker. i thank my friend for yielding me the time. and i request permission to revise and extend. the chair: without objection. mr. clyburn: i have a prepared text here that i would like to enter into the record. but let me begin my remarks, first of all, by welcoming to r capitol today ms. jennifer pinkney and her two daughters. ife and children of reverend pinkney, who along with eight f his bible study parishioners demented ife to a white supremacist who said that

he was interested in starting a race war. he entered their church, participated in the bible study, which they welcomed him into. and as they closed their study for evening and prayed and they had experienced for the next meeting, this gentleman, while their eyesed were closed, opened his and slaut -- eyes were closed, opened his and slaughtered them. i find it interesting my colleague has talked about the nconvenience of waiting longer than three days to purchase a weapon without mentioning those

poor souls of emanuel a.m.e. church. he talked about inconvenience. he talked about something he read in the newspapers, but he has not mentioned them. say i'm here today to that the members of this august body need to think a little bit . out the value of those lives are they more valuable than the inconvenience a gun purchaser by having to wait 10 rather than three days to make a purchase? what would make one so anxious to purchase a gun in the first place? if you've got to have a gun

right now, chances are you have redeeming urpose, no value in the purchase of that gun. and maybe we ought to participate here as members of this body in helping this purchaser with a cooling off period, which is all we are asking to do here. charleston, south carolina, is nicknamed the holy city. churches, steeples dominate the skyline of this historic city which, until recently, had an audience -- ordinance that no building could be constructed

wanting n 55 feet, nothing to obstruct the steeples. faith is fundamental to the charleston community. rocked that faith was this lone 15, when gunman rushed into this bible most after studying the historic african-american churches in the state of south of lina, develop a list ive churches, one of which was emmanuel a.m.e. he selected this church because

of its importance to the african-american community, being the first organized place of worship in the south for african-americans. he selected this. this was a hate crime of the first order. and we are saying we should not inconvenience him. and we did not inconvenience him. we allowed him to get that gun after three days. when it was around the fifth day they found the glitch in the system and found him to be ineligible to own a gun. just had a gunman go into his workplace in aurora, illinois. he was ineligible to have a gun. he was allowed to purchase a gun. when they found out he was ineligible, they sent him a

letter saying please bring us a gun back. you are not eligible to have a gun. give me a break. he didn't return the gun because he had no redeeming value in having the gun. e murdered his co-workers. and you're telling me we should not inconvenience him. , has laid league out a procedure in this bill a procedure that makes it a maximum, irrespective of what my colleague may say, a maximum of 20 working days. business days that one would have in order to purchase a gun. i would hope as we move forward here today we would think about those poor souls of emanuel,

a.m.e. church. we'll think about those 4,000 people, 4,200 people who purchased guns in 2016 using this loophole. the 4,800 people who purchased guns in 2017 using this loophole. think about their families. think about their children. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. million clyburn: think about what -- mr. nadler: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. mr. clyburn: let me take this minute to go back to what i had repared to say here today. in troubling times many of us find solace in the surrenity prayer. -- serenity prayer. god, grant me the serenity to accept the things i can cannot change.

currently to change the things i can. and wisdom, wisdom to know the difference. the charleston loophole is something all members of congress should have the courage to change. and by doing so, grant the american people the serenity they deserve in their schools, in their entertainment venues, in their neighborhood streets. and god forbid in their places of worship. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from ew york is recognized. the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. collins: thank you, madam chair. i have great sympathy for what the gentleman from south carolina just spoke of. but also i have even greater sympathy for the fact he could

have been avoided and had nothing frankly to do at the end when the f.b.i. under mr. comey admitted there were mistakes made. the f.b.i. could have stopped that instead of letting it happen. they saw problems. they let it go. it could have stopped. this was already in law, madam chair. it could have stopped. and, yes, what i laid out for you is not just simply 20 business days. when you look at the fact that coupled with other restrictions it can can do what we said. i have great sympathy and grief for every loss of life no matter where it comes from, but to simply say this would have fixed it when the f.b.i. and others knew they could have fixed it at that moment and could have went later and got the guns because there was a delay even in the horrific act that happened. again, we're simply talking about what's on the paper. with that i yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcclintock: i thank the gentleman for yielding. madam chairman, we all deplore and mourn the monstrous,

despicable, and evil massacre in charleston. but that terrible crime was committed 67 days after the perpetrator applied to purchase the firearm. as mr. collins said, this was he preventable if, under current law, it was a failure of the f.b.i. and not of the law. this bill is not about public safety. most gun predators already get their firearms illegally. and a recent johns hopkins study found california's universal background check had no effect on gun violence. their true objective is to make gun ownership by law-abiding people so legally hazardous and so bureaucratically time consuming that people simply give up. this bill cleverly and i believe insidiously sets up a potentially never-ending bureaucratic review process. as mr. collins said, a background check is only good for 30 calendar days from the

day you apply, but this bill sets up a 20 business day delay process. what that means is, if a single holiday falls within that window, or the store is closed on weekends, or you slip a single day on that timetable, your background check's no longer valid and you have to start all over again in a erpetual cycle of huge proportions. sk lois lerner, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from georgia reserves. and the gentleman from new york is recognized. i now yield two minutes to the gentlelady from california, the chair of the crime subcommittee, ms. bass. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. bass: madam chair, i support h.r. 112, the enhanced

background checks act of 2019, as a commonsense measure to improve the current firearms background checks system and to save lives. 25 years ago today we began implementation of the brady background checks act. the system employs background checks on those seeking to purchase firearms from licensed gun dealers has made us safer. now it is time to address the circumstances in which the f.b.i. needs additional time to investigate information relating to a prospective purchaser when the records may not be immediately clear as to whether someone is legally allowed to purchase a firearm. under current law, after a -- three days, a gun dealer has the disdiscretion to sell a gun to a purchaser if the system is not given a green light to the sale when after three business days have passed without a denial being issued by the system. in these circumstances, it is the choice of the dealer as to whether to proceed with the sale, which we call a default

proceed or whether to wait for the check to be implemented. the results of such a choice were tragic in charleston, south carolina, in 2015 when a young man filled with hate shot and killed nine worshipers at the emanuel a.m.e. church. the gun used in this murder had been transferred by a gun dealer to the shooter even though the check had not been completed by the f.b.i., but which would have resulted in a denial had the check been finished. this is not an isolated incident. since 1994, gun sellers proceeded with between 3,000 and 4,000 default proceed sales per year. analyzing data provided by the department of justice one study found such sales are eight times more likely to involve a prohibited purchaser than other background checks. in 2017 alone, default proceed sales accounted for more than 4,800 transfers to purchasers who with were prohibited from owning firearms. the f.b.i. reported that in

2007 and 2008 in cases of licensed seller sold a firearm through a default proceed transfer -- the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. mr. nadler: i yield an additional 30 seconds. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. bass: the f.b.i. reported in 2007 and 2008 in cases where a licensed seller sold a firearm through default proceed transfers, approximately 22% of the individuals investigated were legally prohibited from purchasing our possessing a firearm. the additional time provided by h.r. 1112 is not too much to ask so that we may help prevent tragedies such as the charleston shooting from happening. this is why i ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill today. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. collins: thank you, madam chair. with that i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. cline. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman is recognized. mr. cline: i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 1112. this legislation is an attack on the constitutional rights of americans. this bill puts incredible roadblocks in the way of law-abiding citizens seeking to exercise their second amendment rights that are guaranteed to them in the constitution. we should be focused on enforcing the current laws that we have on the books instead of passing federal mandates that stifle freedom. this bill creates a bureaucratic maze that will allow the federal government to sit on its hands and force citizens to commit formal petitions to the attorney general when they are trying to legally purchase a firearm. to ask permission to exercise a constitutional right. what other constitutional right would you suggest we put this level of restriction on? the freedom of press? the freedom of religion? should we start having the federal government review every media outlet's story for 10 days before they can be published? before a church can meet for

worship? i don't think so. it's my hope that we'll soon move forward with solutions, solutions that will actually make a difference for hardworking americans across this great country. when i was sworn in as a member of the house earlier this year, i saw a great potential for congress to come together and advance solutions to our nation's greatest problems. instead, i find myself standing here on the floor of this chamber fighting for the basic liberties that our founding fathers sought to guarantee for every american. i will continue to stand and fight each eanch day and irge the house to reject this misguided legislation. i yield back the balance of my time. mr. collins: reserve. the chair: the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: i yield one minute to the gentlelady from illinois, miss underwood. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. miss underwood: everyone deserves to feel safe in their community whether they are at work, home, school, or at

church. less than two weeks ago five people, four of whom were my constituents, left their homes for work at the henry pratt company in aurora, illinois, and never returned. their lives were taken by horrific act of gun violence. i am committed to honoring the lives of the victims of gun violence through action. h.r. 1112 is an important bill that will help address a deficiency in background check laws by allowing law enforcement to conduct a thorough background check. i am proud to co-sponsor an amendment that will help ensure this legislation improves the safety of victims of domestic violence, domestic abuse, dating partner violence, sexual assault, and stalking. yesterday was the first time in more than two decades that this u.s. house of representatives passed a major gun safety bill. today we have an opportunity to take a further step. h.r. 1112 will help save innocent lives and i look forward to working on

commonsense legislation that balances protecting our gun rights and ensuring the safety of our communities. madam speaker, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. collins: thank you, madam chair. at this time i yield as much time he may consume to gentleman from tennessee, mr. roe. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. roe: thank you, madam chair, thank you for yielding. i rise today to fight for the rights of the brave men and women who have risked their lives fighting for our rights. the bill we're debating, h.r. 1112, would have a significant impact on veterans' second amendment rights. little known and poorly understood provision of h.r. 1112 would amend the law to make it unlawful for an individual who has been, quote adjudicated with mental illness, severe developmental disability, or severe emotional instability" to purchase, possess a firearm. it would make it illegal to sell a firearm to such an

individual. let's put this in perspective. there are over 1.6 million disabled veterans with service connected adjudication by v.a. of mental illness, including one million veterans with ptsd. h.r. 1112 has the potential to add all those names of veterans to the f.b.i. nics list and prevent those veterans from being able to possess a firearm. now, i know that may not have been the intent of the author of this bill, but that's a lot of veterans who will be impacted if this becomes law. i offered an amendment to the rules committee to clarify veterans with v.a. ptsd diagnosed mental illness and another affected adjudications would be exempt from the bill's standards but rule out of order. v.a. already sends the names of veterans who have a v.a. fiduciary for inclusion to the nics list. not because there is a concern that the veteran might be a harm to themselves or others, but because the v.a. has

determined the veteran needs assistance handling his or her financial benefits. i'm concerned that the expanded definition proposed in h.r. 1112 would infringe on the second amendment rights of over a million veterans solely because they receive benefits from v.a. that they have rightly earned to their service to our great country. the last thing any one of us want to do is discourage veterans from seeking v.a. benefits and treatment because they are afraid it might cost them a constitutional right. think about that. although there may not have been a finding by a judicial authority that a veteran possesses a danger to themselves or society, these veterans will be told they were good enough to use a firearm to fight for our freedoms but they're not good enough to have the freedom to bear arms as a civilian. that's wrong, madam chair. even criminals must be convicted in a court of law

before their names are added to the nics list. of all americans who deserve their constitutional rights, the most deserving are those who fought for our country. that's why i strongly oppose h.r. 1112, and i urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: madam speaker, i now yield three minutes to the gentlelady from georgia, a , mrs. from the committee mcbath. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mrs. mcbath: after losing my son, jordan, to gun violence in 012, i began reaching out to others who lost loved ones.

that's how i came to know reverend richer. she lost her mother, two cousins and a childhood friend when a young man shot and killed nine people during a prayer service at the emanuel church in charleston, south carolina. today, with h.r. 1112, we can close the loophole in background checks for the gun purchase that led to their terrible loss. i support this legislation for reverend sharon richer and the memory of her family and loved ones. tragically, this is not the last time our country witnessed horrific balance in a place of worship. a few months ago the shooting at the tree of life synagogue in pittsburgh, pennsylvania, took the lives of 11 human beings. our places of worship, whether they are churches, synagogues, mosques, or something else, should be safe places of love,

support, and community. h.r. 1112 would allow law enforcement the time that they need to make sure all these community centers are places of peace and safety. yesterday, we voted to expand background checks. today, we vote to make sure those background checks are thorough. even if a few of them take a few more days to process, those few extra days will save lives. in the days after the emanuel shooting, i was there in the community praying with the community and dealing with their pain and loss and america deserves better than this. why not make sure that we're doing everything that we can to protect them? a few more days of making sure that f.b.i. has the ability to really soundly make a conscious and critical decision, america deserves that. i ask my colleagues to join me

in supporting this bill, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new york reserves, and the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. collins: at this time, madam chair, i'll reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves, and the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: madam speaker, i heard the argument from the other side a moment ago that people judged ineligible by the system by the v.a. should not -- that their name should not be get in the system so they may purchase firearms. i'd point out that one of the largest sources of mortality among veterans is suicide. veterans are i think the highest group in our society in terms of suicide rate. so it really makes sense to ake it easier for people adjudged not to be proper to

have a gun to have a gun if you're worried about suicides. that argument is frankly nonsensical. i'm glad the v.a. helps veterans by participating in the system. i now yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from rhode island, a member of the committee and chairman of one of our subcommittees, mr. cicilline. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cicilline: i thank the gentleman for yielding. in further support of mr. nadler's remarks, on average 20 veterans commit suicide every single day in this country and 2/3 of those suicides are caused by a use of the gun. so mr. nadler is quite right. i rise in strong support of h.r. 1112, to close the charleston loophole. we heard a lot what's at stake in terms of constitutional rights with regard to firearms. and there are others, the right to liberty, the right to live death, gun violence and

a free for a grandmother free from dangers of gun violence, the right of children to play on the playground safely. this legislation is very important because it closes a very significant loophole in our law. over the last two decades, the charleston loophole has allowed more than 60,000 purchases of guns by prohibited individuals. let that sink in. 60,000 people who were prohibited to buy a gun by law were allowed to get those guns because of this loophole. one of those purchasers was a white supremacist who used a gun that he purchased to kill nine worshipers at the mother emanuel church in charleston, south carolina. even though he had a felony drug charge on his record, this killer was able to buy a gun because his background check was not completed in three days. he is not the only one. a 2016 g.a.o. report said

between 2006 and 2015, guns were transferred to about 6,700 people with domestic violence convictions and more than 500 individuals with prohibited protective orders. there are many, many examples where the american people are less safe because criminals and disqualified people can access a firearm because the background check wasn't completed in three days. this is a very simple, commonsense solution to that problem. our laws will not work if we don't keep guns out of the hands of criminals, dangerous people, other disqualified purchasers. and this bill does that. this is a commonsense proposal. i urge my colleagues to support this. i thank mr. clyburn for his leadership and thank mr. nadler for bringing these bills before the judiciary committee so we can finally take some responsible action to reduce gun violence in this country. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired.

the gentleman from new york is recognized -- reserves, and the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. collins: thank you, madam chair. one thing i will agree on with my friend just now, i do agree there is a right to life and that's why i would love to see this house bring forth the born alive abortion survivors protection act which protects life and with that i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from georgia reserves, and the gentleman from new york is recognized. r. nadler: madam chair, at this time i'd like to address a concern that has been raised about one section of the bill that's unrelated to the changes to current law to address the charleston loophole. section 3 of the bill replaces outdated and offensive terminology in the categories of individuals who are ineligible to purchase or possess firearms under current law. among those included, there are individuals subject to such prohibitions because as stated by the current law, they are, quote, adjudicated as a mental defective, unquote. in the judiciary committee's markup of the bill, we agreed

with our ranking member, representative collins, to replace this offensive language and to insert different terminology in the bill as a placeholder as we work to develop alternative language that does not alter the scope of who is included in these prohibitions and work with stakeholders who have interest in how this would be accomplished. we heard from various advocates in the mental health, disabilities, veterans' communities who expressed their desire to find an acceptable alternative. we agree. yesterday the veterans of foreign wars brought their attention. v.f.w. agrees that the current terminology is archaic but is concerned about a potential unintended consequence of replacing it. their concern is that replacing these terms of, quote, mental illness, severe developmental disability or severe emotional instability, end quote, could result some veterans who are now included being added to the nics index due to their receipt of v.a. care or benefits of mental illness such as ptsd or

traumatic brain injury. it is not the intent made by section 3 to alter the scope of those currently considered to be, quote, adjudicated as a mental defective. it is to change that offensive language but not to change the underlying law. we will work with the v.f.w., the mental health community and disability rights community to address concerns with regard to this outdated term naling in a manner that does mr. collins: we brought this up. the language is offensive. ms. lofgren, who was in the chair, present this had language as an alternative to get us to a place where as we talked about to get to rules to actually fix this. this is why i have said so many times that i have not -- i

understand the majority's willingness to bring a bill forward. what i didn't understand here is the willingness of this majority to put themselves on a timetable to bring bills that were not ready. the reason we did it that night was so that we could get to rules. i served on rules for four years. we could have fixed it at rules. dr. roe brought an amendment at rules but was rejected. i understand now we're going to continue forward. i have a daughter who has spina bifida and many would say mental defective for anyone in that community who believes that these who are born that way would be mental defective is a problem. it needs to be fixed. but the problem that we have here was a committee process that broke. and a rules process that broke. there were plenty of opportunities to address this, plenty of opportunity to discuss this. and now in the rush to do, again, what i said yesterday many times, what makes you feel good does not always you heal. and now you have a problem. a valid problem.

but it was not a problem from the perspective of not trying to fix it. it came from both sides of the aisle to say this language was archaic, this language should not be there. there were plenty of times to fix it. i appreciate the chairman. i'm glad to hear his willingness to continue to work on this. mean?ould another day i guess when the aclu and others started to score against it we decided we might need to fix it. again, this is a process problem. i know nobody likes to talk about process problems because at the end of the day, i believe the authors' intents behind these bills are good. i believe their process may be wrong and i'll speak to that. but this is a problem that we have. i'm glad the chairman is moving forward. i'm glad the chairman is looking at this, and i'm glad the chairman is willing to address this going forward. but it's just sad we had to get here today because this could have been fixed except for an

arbitrary timeline put onto my chairman that he really had no control over, i believe, to bring something forward that's not ready for primetime. i respect my chairman. i'm glad that he's addressed this. i hope they will give him plenty of time in the future to continue to work these problems out. with that i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: madam speaker, our mistake was in accepting the amendment of the gentleman from georgia, mr. collins. the amendment dealt with the underlying language of the underlying law, not with the bill. we should have insisted an attempt to correct that language be in a separate bill. the gentleman from georgia is now tell us that we should kill this bill for -- that will save so many lives because we have not figured out acceptable language to replace existing bad language in the existing

law that had nothing to do with this bill. we should pass this bill. we will work as we go forward to see if we can come up with acceptable language. in any event we should pass this bill and deal with the separate problem of bad language in the underlying law separately. how much time do i have, madam chair? the chair: the gentleman from new york has six minutes remaining. mr. nadler: i now yield one minute to the distinguished gentlelady from illinois, ms. kelly. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. kelly: thank you, chairman nadler. in support i rise of those who died in a bible study and for the tens of thousands of americans who will die if congress does not close the charleston loophole. the f.b.i. reported more than

270,000 guns were sold because the nics system failed to issue a do-not-sale order within three days. a man with with to -- and, madam speaker, we have seen this time and time again. our houses of worship are not safe from gun violence. mother emanuel, first baptist, sutherland springs, tree of life, oak creek house of worship, and the list goes on and on. we talk about ptsd, posttraumatic stress disorder. just recently, i heard someone in the chicago area talk about ptsd but it was present traumatic stress disorder because of all the guns that are in the streets in the hands of people that should not have them. . madam speaker, i ask my colleagues to pass this bill and save lives and prevent dangerous people from getting

guns. pass this law because you never know if it will be your son or mother who could be next. gunned down doing something as routine as praying. today we need to pass h.r. 1112. today we need to honor the emanuel nine and close the charmston loophole. the chair: the gentlewoman from new york rifes. the gentleman from georgia recognized. mr. collins: can i have the time as well. the chair: the gentleman from georgia has 15 3/4 minutes. mr. collins: look, as my chairman just stated, madam speaker, i have no problem with -- can i go back through my opening statement and list the many reasons i oppose this bill. it had nothing to do with the amendment that should have been fixed by the time we got the rules. which was agreed upon and the language was given by ms. lofgren and staff, and we said we'll take that and move to rules to fix it. i'm not opposing -- if you look at my statements already, i'm opposing this bill for many

other reasons that have very valid. i believe when you look for timing and other things. again, i believe working the process is proper. working the process will go through. and the majority should have -- you brought it to the floor, you should have votes to pass t. the bigger issue is the very fundamental issues of the timing of this bill, the timing it is not just 20 days. there is an other -- when you couple it with the actual 30 days restriction on the application itself. there are plenty of reasons for me to oppose this bill. the other part was simply a discussion that should have been fixed and wasn't. that's a tragedy for it coming to the floor and being a problem. at the end of the day we pointed it out. we tried . to my problem with this bill is the bill itself and many of the language we have. with that i do ask the chairman -- could i inquire, mr. airman, if you have any more

speakers. mr. nadler: we do. mr. collins: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: madam speaker, i now yield two minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from texas, member of the committee, ms. jackson lee. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. . jackson lee: i thank the chairman. i thank mr. clyburn, who for years have been working on this issue. h.r. 1112 enhanced background checks of 2019, is long in coming. response to many people, but a response to dylan rooff in 2015 went into a gun store to get a gun. he was not the normal purchaser and it did not approve in 90 seconds as most are. when a day or two when it had not yet approved as well, dylan roof was able to get a gun and his whole message was i'm going

to start a race war by going into an unlocked church on a prayer night and kill nine worshipers praying to their god. and their pastor, whose wife was here today. so the question has to be, when are we going to stop the senseless killing and the eons and eons of mass chutings? my good friend from georgia, mr. collins, is a man of faith. i was in the committee room senior member on the crime subcommittee, as we were trying to deliberate his concern. very vital concern. one that i have. to love people with disabilities. to love them and treat them with dignity. the language in this legislation says that as best we could at the time. because it puts the language adjudicated. determined by some objective body that you have a health problem that deals with a

mental concern. so the question has to be if it is not workable, you pass the bill. and all of us have made a commitment to work through this process and to give dignity to every person, including a veteran. but at the same time would you want to have a situation that happened with dylan rooff a convicted felon who would grab the gun in two days and can killed nine innocent people, or killed people in various other places. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. mr. nadler: an additional 30 seconds. ms. jackson lee: from columbine, to you aurora, to virginia tech. look at the stories. mass footings. -- shootings. look at the violence in cities where people are getting guns. i would make the argument that today we must pass h.r. 1112 and the mercy of all of us dealing with issues to give

dignity to those who suffer from illnesses that embrace mental illness concerns it was because mr. collins, a man of faith, offered the suggestion and therefore we're going to move forward with the commitment to work it through and provide the dignity necessary but to save the lives and to pay tribute in depth to those who lost their life at the hands of dylan. vote for h.r. 1112. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. collins: thank you, madam chair. i will inquire of my chairman at this point do we have more speakers? mr. nadler: no further speaker s. i'm prepared to close. mr. collins: i have no others as well. we have had an interesting debate this morning. i think we went back on two points. i believe i laid out the problems in a very methodical way on why this bill has serious defects in it that

could possibly be fixed if given long enough to work. i still may disagree with the premise of the bill but could have been worked out when you take one part of law and combine it with another part of law. we have seen a calendarring problem here. that's one part. i think we have also seen how the process has not worked out. again sometimes in life getting it first is not best. getting it quickly may not always be the best result. i think what we're seeing here is something that when we're dealing with the rights of individuals, especially in this area here, especially for the reasons that we're given which were a tragedy in charleston, which could have been stopped by the f.b.i. who already had suspicions on not selling this firearm and could have went and taken that firearm, this is a problem. with that, i have laid out as much as i can. our speakers have as well. there are many opposed to this. they'll continue to be opposed to it on both sides of the spectrum. our side from the perspective of our rights and those being violated, the aclu for their reasons and others.

it's time we have honest discussion about what can actually deter this mass violence we're seeing. unfortunately madam chair, we always speak in mass violence. why do we have to go to the big violence. why do we have to go to the one that is were killed, but what about the one that is we can actually work on when we give better enforcement to our law enforcement, better prosecutions of gun crimes, better prosecution that affect the single life in the neighborhood today. is a single life not as important as the one that is we're affecting now? as we look forward i would ask that this will be voted down, but i think we have laid out a reason why at least it should be considered by all members before they put their card in that machine to decide why they are supporting a bill that we believe has obvious flaws to it. not the intent of the individual offering it but the actual words on paper have flaws in them. that's why we oppose this bill. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from georgia yields back.

the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: madam chair, this is an important bill that addresses a significant and tragically demonstrated threat to public safety. today is the 25th anniversary of the implementation of the brady backgrounds check act. his lifesaving law served us well. helping to prevent firearms from getting those who shouldn't have it. we know it must be updated and improved. remember what this bill does. all this bill does is give the f.b.i. additional time, to complete a background check in the 8% or 9% of cases where it's not done within 90 seconds. if you haven't gotten the background check back in three days, under this bill, you can't get it. ought matically. you can't get the weapon automatically. they have 10 days to do it. if after 10 days, you can

petition the attorney general and if they still don't do it, get your firearm within 10 days that. will save a lot of lives. we hear about mass shootings. we also should remember we're not talking about just mass shootings. 34 people a day are can killed in this country by guns. -- are can killed in this country by guns. every other industrialized country in the world, 90, 120, 170. the united states, 39,000. how are we different? are we thousands of times more mentally ill than people in europe or japan? no. are we more vicious? no. or more degreated? no. the difference is that this country is awash in guns. the difference is that in this country people who are dangerous can can get guns. these are modest steps.

we should ban assault weapons. ban large capacity magazine clips. we're not doing that. we're starting with very moderate steps. this is a very moderate step to improve the background check system. with all the rhetoric we hear, that's all it does. give a little extra time to make sure that someone who is dangerous, whose possession of a firearm is illegal, cannot get it. that will save lives. irge my colleagues to ignore all the nonsense rhetoric about extraneous considerations. join me in supporting this bill today. join me in supporting save lives. join me in making the united states a little safer to live in. thank you. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from new york yields back. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. in lieu of the amendment in the

nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on the judiciary printed in bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 116-6 is adopted. the bill as amended shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. no further amendment to the bill as amended shall be in order except those printed in part b of house report 116 bsh 14. each -- 116-14. each such further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in

part b of house report 116-14. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. rice: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk shall designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1, printed in part b of house report number 116-14, offered by mr. rice of south carolina. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 145, the gentleman from south carolina, mr. rice, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina. mr. rice: thank you, madam speaker. dylan roof is a monster. dylan should never have been able to buy a gun. dylan rooff walked into a church in my hometown of charleston, south carolina, my birthdays of charleston, south carolina and he slaughtered nine people.

in a bible study. i can't imagine a more horrific crime. and we all naturally look for a response. my friend, mr. clyburn, the majority have noted that thousands of people have wrongfully acquired guns because of the failure of our background check system under what's become known as the charleston loophole. the stated purpose of this underlying legislation, mr. clyburn's legislation, is certainly noble. to close the charleston loophole. the only problem is, it does not carry out that purpose. too often here we take up noble causes and we create legislation with nobody names and we pass this legislation to feel better, but the legislation fails to solve the

roblem in the title. after these horrific murders, the families of the victims sued the federal government for allowing this monster to buy a gun. charleston federal district judge wrote a lengthy opinion in which he laid a bear the federal background check process and its failures in this case, the case of dylan rooff. . the case is available for anybody to read. in his 22-page opinion, he lays out various structural flaws in the background check system. most notably that the f.b.i. maintains four criminal databases. and under the background check

system, the background checker is allowed to check only three of those. why? i assume because those were the three that existed in the 1990's when the background check system came into place. there's a fourth one. it is more extensive and is more detailed. it's called index. n-dex. in this file was all the information that dylann roof's background checker needed to know to deny him the right to buy the gun. this index system contained that information and it is maintained by the f.b.i. all they had to do was allow this background checker to look at that, and the f.b.i. has admitted, had they been able to do that, this man, this monster would never have been able to buy a gun. my amendment would actually fix

the charleston loophole. the problem is that i cannot support the underlying legislation. why? because it creates an undue amount of time to buy a gun. and number two, the thing that bothers me the most, it shifts a part of the burden to the american citizen trying to exercise his second amendment rights. it requires him in the event that you don't hear back from the government to file a petition with the federal court. undo k this is an interference with his second amendment right. therefore, i can't accept this unrelying legislation, and the senate has indicated it will not be taken up in the president senate, and the president has said if it passed he would veto it. therefore, i plan to withdraw my amendment. i plan to offer it separately

as a new piece of legislation, which will in fact close the charleston loophole. it will allow the f.b.i. background checkers to search -dex file urrent n that was created well after 9/11 after the background check law came into effect, it would have prevented -- the f.b.i. has admitted it would have prevented dylann roof from buying the gun and i suspect many of the people that carried out these horrific shootings in recent years. it will hopefully garner the bipartisan support necessary to ctually become law and fix the underlying problem. i withdraw my amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. mr. collins: if the gentleman will yield? the chair: the time has expired. mr. collins: i support the gentleman. the chair: without objection, he amendment is withdrawn.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in part b of house report 116-14. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. schneider: madam chair, amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in part b of house report 116-14 offered by mr. schneider of illinois. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 145, the gentleman from illinois, mr. schneider, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois. mr. schneider: thank you, madam chair. i rise in support of my amendment to h.r. 1112, the the enhanced background checks act of 2019, and applaud mr. clyburn for his leadership and enduring commitment to reducing gun violence and make our communities safer. i appreciate my friend from texas, sheila jackson lee, for her leadership on this issue as

well. mr. speaker, it's unconscionable to think convicted felons, domestic abicers, and others who are prohibited by law from purchasing a firearm could end up with these weapons anyway. sadly, this is the reality we currently live -- we currently live in due to the default proceeds sales, otherwise known as the charleston loophole. i legislated on this problem in the past because we must do everything we can to make sure firearms don't end up in the hands of those who should not have them. this is why i'm also a co-sponsor of mr. clyburn's the enhanced background checks act. the f.b.i. should -- in fact, needs to know if a default proceeds sale has taken place. currently, this is not the case unless the f.b.i. eventually completes a background check, determines the purchaser should be prohibited from owning a firearm, and subsequently contacts the dealer. we need more information throughout this process, and my amendment would do just that, require the f.b.i. to report on the number of background checks that they are not able to complete within the designated time period.

this information will help keep track of the f.b.i.'s ability to clear background checks in the timely manner as well as get better understanding where there is still room for improvement. it will also provide much-needed transparency to the default proceed process. all who support commonsense solutions to reduce the gun violence epidemic in this country should support this amendment and the underlying legislation. i encourage my colleagues to vote yes. i would now like to yield two minutes to my dear friend and a tireless champion and leader on the efforts to reduce gun violence, the gentlelady from texas, sheila jackson lee. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman very much. i thank him for his leadership on a very important enhancement to the the enhanced background checks act of 2019, which requires the f.b.i. to report on the number of petitions it was not able to make a determination on within the 10-day period. i think mr. schneider knows why we are here on the floor is to save lives, to protect innocent

people from being subjected to what the emanuel nine was, worshipers in a church with their pastor praying as this country allows one to do. it is my belief that the schneider-jackson lee amendment should be cast -- passed, because with this critical data and compliance reporting, we can learn more about legislative injustices like the one that enabled dylann roof to rocess the handgun used to murder nine people at the emanuel a.m.e. church in charleston south carolina. he had not be approved by the nics reporting system. he was able to come back. this system allows us to know how much have not -- how many have not been approved to address the question that deals with better policy. i join my colleague in supporting the schneider-jackson lee amendment. i close by saying this tracks the accidental firearms transfers reporting act that i introduced in previous congresses in h.r. 3125 and

h.r. 57. i look forward to working with my colleague as we expand reasonable gun safety legislation to protect our children, our families, and americans. with that i yield back to the gentleman. mr. schneider: thank you. i'd like to yield one minute to the chairman of the committee, mr. nadler from new york. mr. nadler: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i support this amendment, which requires the f.b.i. to report on a number of petitions it was not able to resolve with a determination within 10 days. we know that providing more time for checks to be completed in the instances that more time is needed will help prevent guns from getting into the hands of those who ineligible under current law from purchasing and possessing the guns. that is the goal of this bill is to do just that and to allow individuals whose checks take longer than 10 days to complete the opportunity to petition for their case to be reviewed within another 10-day period. the report required by this amendment will help us oversee the implementation of this new process and the changes instituted by this law. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back

the balance of my time. mr. schneider: thank you. i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from illinois reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. chins collins thank you -- mr. mcclintock: thank you, madam chair. i claim time -- mr. collins: thank you, madam chair. i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. collins: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. schneider: do you have speakers on this issue? mr. collins: no, i do not. mr. schneider: thank you. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia. mr. collins: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from georgia yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois will be postponed.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in part b of house report 116-14. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. levin: amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in part b of house report 116-14 offered by mr. levin of michigan. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 145, the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: thank you, madam chairwoman.

i'm proud to co-sponsored the the enhanced background checks act, h.r. 1112, and i'm also proud today to present an amendment that will make sure we can track and learn from the good that this bill will accomplish once it becomes law. 39,773 americans died from gun violence. this is a public health epidemic. under current law, if a background check is not completed within three business days, a federally licensed firearms dealer may move forward with a firearms transfer or sale. the devastating reality is that many horrific acts of gun violence, including the massacre at the emanuel african methodist church in charleston, south carolina, which ended nine lives and left several people wounded, could have been avoided. today we'll vote to close the loophole that allowed for that tragedy. by close whag has become known

as the charleston -- what has become known as the charleston loophole, the the enhanced background checks will give additional time before a licensed dealer can transfer a gun. we have an obligation to the american people and to the victims of the shooter at the a.m.e. church to pass the bill before us today, and i'm proud to be part of this effort to protect our communities from gun violence. my amendment to h.r. 1112 will require the government accountability office to submit a report to congress one year, three years, and five years following the implementation of this law. these reports will analyze the extent to which the changes made by this law will prevent firearms from being transferred to prohibited persons. i'm proud that this amendment has broad support from all stakeholders that have been involved in making this bill a reality. we must strive for effective, evident-based policies that

promote public health and protect our communities. my amendment will cost us nothing, but it will help build the evident base around the effectiveness of good gun violence prevention policies, like this one. this amendment is all the more important given the regrettable lack of federal funding for gun violence research. my amendment will finally help us demonstrate with data that gun violence prevention measures, like the one before us today, will prevent firearms from ending up in the hands of people who should not have them. i came to washington because the people of southern mccomb and southeastern oakland counties sent me here on a mission, and that mission includes protecting our communities from senseless gun violence. i stand today in solidarity with the courageous people of michigan's ninth congressional district's moms demand action and students demand action. we have a responsibility as members of congress and as human beings, not just to talk

about the horrors of gun violence, but to do everything in our powers to end it. today, we will take critically necessary steps to do just that. i'd like to thank congressman jim clyburn, peter king, joe cunningham for their leadership to make sure we close the charleston loophole. i ask my colleagues to support h.r. 1112 and to support this amendment. i yield one minute to the chairman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: i thank the gentleman for yield. i support this amendment to require the g.a.o. to submit a report to the relevant congressional committees analyzing the extent to which the additions required by this bill prevent firearms from being transferred to prohibited persons. it will be important for us to get information about the implementation of the law and its impact on so-called default proceed transactions. the amendment also requires that the g.a.o. report its findings after 90 days and again after one year, three years, and five years. i think it's always a good idea to actually track the effect of

new legislation and see how effective it is. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment, and i commend the sponsor for doing so. i yield back the balance of my time. mr. levin: thank you so much, mr. nadler. i reserve, madam chair. the chair: the gentleman from michigan reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. collins: thank you, madam chair. i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. collins: thank you, madam chair. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. . mr. levin: does the gentleman from georgia have speakers to speak in opposition? mr. collins: no. mr. levin: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia. mr. collins: i yield back as well. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in part b of house report 116-14. for what purpose does the the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in part b of house report number 116-14, offered by ms. porter of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 145, the gentlewoman from california, ms. porter, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. miss porter: -- ms. porter: i yield myself such time as i may consume. -- i immediate myself three minutes. we must confront the issues of domestic violence, domestic abuse, dating partner violence,

sexual assault, and stalking. according to the national task force to end sexual and domestic violence, firearms pose a significant danger to victims of domestic violence, and this is true no matter who owns the firearm. research shows that a male abuser's access to firearm increases the risk of intimate fivefold. ling and firearm protection is not a protective factor of the victim. prohibited buyers who obtain a firearm throughout charleston loophole are disproportionately likely to be prohibited because of domestic violence. indeed, in 2017, 23% of cases where a gun was transferred to a prohibited purchaser through a default proceeds sale involved a person prohibited due to a conviction for domestic violence or prohibited due to a domestic violence

restraining order. denials related to domestic violence require more investigation often than denials based on other factors. i'm offering this amendment so that this bill's background check process before it goes into effect congress can hear from experts and the justice and that the national resource center on domestic violence and firearms on whether any changes could be made to better protect victims of domestic violence. this amendment requires the study on domestic violence to be completed within 150 days. if the van drew amendment passes, this bill will have an effective date of 210 days after enactment. if the study finds that further changes would be advisable to better protect domestic violence victims, congress will have enough time to make those changes. i yield two minutes to my colleague from wisconsin. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. thank the let me

gentlelady for offering this amendment along with other our lleagues to h.r. 1112 that would simply require the department of justice to release the report. analyzing the effect of this bill's provisions of the safety of the victims of domestic violence. domestic abuse, dating partner violence, sexual assault, and stalking. i'm here on the floor today, madam chairwoman, with the hopes that my colleagues will listen to the to the 10 million men, women, and children who experience domestic violence each year. domestic violence is a horrible scourge and the presence or possession of a gun only worsens these tragedies. you heard my colleague, representative porter, say that women are five times for likely

to die, be killed in a domestic violence situation if a gun is owned. which is one of the reasons, madam chair, i have introduced legislation to help incentivize states to adopt laws that ensure that we do everything to take guns from those with a court restraining order or other protective order. i hope, madam chair, 245 my -- that my colleagues will listen to the three women and one in four men who have been victims of intimate partner violence. i sure hope colleagues will listen to me as one of the 4.5 million women who have experienced gun violence first hand. there is much discussion in these chambers about a national emergency. gun violence, domestic violence is a national emergency.

that's why we have offered this amendment so that our laws actually reflect the realities. the data collected will be critical to inform congress about ways to prevent needless tragedies the chair: the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. ms. moore: and help us evolve in a way that more will protect our constituents. thank you so much for your indulgence. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman from california reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. collins: claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. collins: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. porter: i yield back the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. mr. collins: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from georgia yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california. so many as are in favor say aye.

those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to qur amendment number 5 printed in part b of house report 116-14. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. van drew: madam chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5, printed in part b of house report number 116-14, offered by mr. van drew of new jersey. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 145, the gentleman

from new jersey, mr. van drew, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. mr. van drew: i yield myself uch time as i may consume. my amendment would ensure that from the date of a firearm purchase is legally authorized under the bill, the firearm purchaser has 25 calendar days to pick up their gun. regardless of how much time has elapsed since the background check was first initiated. this would prevent a situation under the bill as it is written that although rare would still be possible. with a maximum allowable number of business days, 20 business days, that a purchaser would have to wait for an approval could actually run longer, hypothetically, than the 30 days. that would be problematic because under a current a.t.f. bureau of alcohol, tobacco, and

firearms explosive regulation, a gun cannot be transferred after 30 days once a background check begins. where more than 30 calendar days have passed since the licensee first contacted nics, the national institute criminal background check system, the licensee must initiate a new nics check prior to transferring the firearm. my amendment would prevent an unnecessary background check dueover. -- doover. for those who get approved by the f.b.i. after three business days, my amendment would essentially nullify the 30 days a.t.f. regulation, allowing prohe spective firearm owners the -- prospective firearm owners the peace of mind they deserve. after this bill went through the judiciary committee, the point was raised an a.t.f. regulation if left unchanged could result in a situation where even after a background check was approved or a petition process was followed

the lawful gun buyer would still not be able to get the gun without doing a second background check because too much time had elapsed since the first background check began. this is clearly not the intent of the bill. while i believe that a.t.f. would amend the regulation if this bill is passed, this amendment removes all doubt. anyone who is legally authorized to obtain a firearm under the new process will have ample time, 25 days to return to the dealer and retrieve the gun. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. collins: madam chair, i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. collins: thank you, madam chair. i aproosh combat the gentleman -- i appreciate the gentleman here on this. it's good to fix this but it doesn't fix it. that's the problem we're looking at and we discussed

earlier your amendment claims to prevent this but it fails to do so. p per a.t.f. regulation the nics check is only valid for 30 days from when it was contacted. it does extend the time frame in the event of a delayed response or direct the attorney general to do so. if the purchaser completes the process under h.r. 1112 then attempts to take possession of the firearm on calendar 31 a.t.f. regulations would suggest it's too late. the nics check has expired and as a result the federal license firearms dealer would need to conduct a new check. i did offer an amendment to extend the validity of the nics to 60 days to secure this deficiency, the democrats refused to make my amendment in order. so for that reason i am glad that the gentleman is trying to fix this, which is where it should be, it just doesn't fix it. we're again searching for an amendment and solution to a problem that can could have been fixed but this does not.

i'm glad the gentleman brought the amendment. in the plain reading of the statute and plain reading of this amendment, this is a great attempt. it just falls short. for that reason i urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment when it would not actually fix the problem we outlined earlier. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. van drew: i would again emphasize this is 25 days after that also law supersedes regulation. there is no question that that 25 days would be in place and that would give more, more than a sufficient amount of time, in fact a lenient amount of time just to ensure that there aren't any problems here. i reserve the balance of my time. i yield to the chairman, chairman nadler, to speak in favor of this amendment. the chair: how much time? mr. van drew: one minute.

mr. nadler: i rise in support of this amendment. this completely takes care of mr. collins' concern whether he realizes it or not because this says that the transfer can take place for 25 days after the transfer becomes legally permissible. in other words, under the longest time frame, the background check doesn't come back within 10 days, the purchaser waits a few days and then petitioned the attorney general. takes another 10 days. then it becomes legally permissible. this says the transfer can take place for 25 days after that. there's no way this doesn't take care of the problem mr. collins raised and then some. the current procedures in place do not take into account the longer waiting period and petition process that h.r. 1112 requires. this amendment more than takes care of that. salutory amendment, makes the system work, and i can't understand whether he they

support the bill or not who wouldn't support this. i support the amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. mr. van drew: i thank the chairman. just a couple of other points just on a personal level i have been always a supporter of second amendment rights, continue to be. and the purpose of that is to, obviously, do so, support second amendment rights. secondly, i know that there is language in another part of the bill that many people have asked me about which is not something i'm amending or had to do with, but i know that there is a commitment from leadership that that language is going to be completely redone and that language will be totally appropriate and actually will be a major improvement. i yield. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. and the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. collins: thank you, madam chair. again, i appreciate my chairman, but i disagree. there is still the 30 day

limitation. the 30-day limitation is not done here, so there is and could be a problem if it was done -- still have my time, there is no time left. the issue here is if it is approved after the 30 days, then this bill does not fix it. the easy fix here with an amendment we offered is simply extend it for 60 days. that's your fix. instead, we go through this, as good things lawyerly, we can have lawyerly disagreements. i think if you go back and look at this, you see there is an interpretation problem here. the 30 days still exist. why couldn't we extend to 60 days instead of 30 days instead of going through this exercise -- this exercise? the chair: the gentleman reserves. mr. van drew: i does --

the chair: does the gentleman ask unanimous consent to reclaim his time? mr. van drew: yes. the chair: the objection is heard. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. collins: madam chair, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey will e postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings now will resume on those amendments printed in part b of house report 116-14 on which further proceedings

were postponed in the following order. amendment number 2 by mr. schneider of illinois, amendment number 5 by mr. van drew of new jersey. the chair will reduce to two minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 2 printed in part b of house report 116-14 by the gentleman from illinois, mr. schneider, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will designate the amendment. -- clarke. the clerk: amendment number 2 -- the chair: the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the chair: amendment number 2 printed in part b of house report 116-14 offered by mr. schneider of illinois.

the chair: those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas 144.82, the nays are

he amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 5 printed in byt b of house report 116-14 e gentleman from new jersey, mr. van drew. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in part b of house report 116-14 offered by mr. van drew of new jersey. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise nd be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the

national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas 193.34, the nays are the amendment is adopted. there being no further amendments, under the rule, the committee rises. >> madam -- the chair: madam chair. -- the speaker pro tempore: madam chair. the chair: the committee of the whole house of the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 1112. i report the bill as amended back to the house. with sundry amendments adopted

n the committee. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill, h.r. 1112, and pursuant to house resolution 145, reports the bill as amended by that resolution back to the house with sundry further amendments adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule, the previous question is ordered. >> madam speaker. the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house is not in order. is a separate vote demanded on

any amendment reported from the committee of the whole? if not, the chair will put them engross. the question is on the adoption of the amendments. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendments are agreed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend chapter 44 of title 1, united states code, -- 18, united states code, to strengthen the background checks procedures to be followed by a federal firearms licensee may transfer a firearm to a person who is not such a licensee. the speaker pro tempore: the house is not in order. members, please take your

conversations off the floor. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from arizona rise? >> madam speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill? mrs. lesko: i am. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mrs. lesko of arizona moves to recommit the bill, h.r. 1112, to the committee on the judiciary, with instructions to report the same back to the house with the following amendment. age 1, line 13, insert i after ii. pages 1, line 17, strike i and insert aa. page 2, line 9, strike aa and insert a.a. strike bb and insert capital bb. and 2 line 21, strike ii

insert bb. page 3, line 1, insert or after the semicolon. page 3, strike line 2 and insert the following. ii. in the case that the transferee is a victim of a crime of domestic violence, meaning days on which state offices are open, have collapsed since the licensee contacted the system, in the subclause, the term crime of domestic violence means an offense that has an element the use, attempted use or threatened use of physical force or the threatened use of a deadly weapon committed by a current or former spouse, parent or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is could he habitatting with or has -- co-habitatting with or has co-habtitted -- co-habitatted with the victim, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent or guardian of the

victim, and -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. mrs. lesko he: thank you, madam speaker. this motion to recommit will not kill the bill or send it back to committee to be clear. if adopted the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended. my democrat colleagues are set to pass this bill, despite, despite the fact that the aclu opposes it. let me repeat that. the aclu opposes h.r. 1112 because it is so sweeping and improperly perpetrates unfounded assumptions that people with mental -- could the house be in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady will suspend. the house will be in order.

please take your conversations off the floor. mrs. lesko: the aclu oppose it is because it perpetrates unfounded assumptions that people with mental disabilities should be considered dangerous and are prone to violence without any meaningful due process. as most of you know, i am a survivor of domestic violence. that is why this motion to recommit is so personally important to me. is motion to recommit in contrast is narrowly tailored, it would simply allow victims of domestic violence who go through a nics check to receive their firearms in three days which is the status quo if nics has not responded with a denial or approval in three business days. again, the status quo. do we really want to tell

victims of domestic violence they have to wait up to 20 business days, which is under this bill, before they are allowed to adequately defend themselves? do we really want to tell them, sorry, if i know you're purchasing a firearm to o protect yourself but you have o wait 20 business days? should we tell them, hopefully, you can can hide from your abuser for the next month? the judiciary committee repeatedly heard testimony -- recently heard testimony from a young woman who was raped on her college campus. she did not have a gun on campus because the state did not allow her to carry a gun in order to defend herself. this is a clear example of how law-abiding citizens, not

criminals, follow the law an how this law-abiding young woman has -- was harmed by gun control laws. more specific example related to this bill is an example of a well-intentioned law gone wrong carol, a new jersey woman stabbed to death while waiting to be approved for her firearm application. she already had an order of protection from the courts, but that wasn't enough for her. she needed more than just that piece of paper. she needed to protect herself. so she went and tried to get a gun to defend herself but because of the waiting period she was killed. let me repeat that. carol bond had an order protection. she attempted to purchase a firearm and was tragically murdered by her abuser while waiting to be approved. h.r. 1112 will make the realities of carol's story

happen across the country, putting millions of women and law-abiding citizens in danger. women who seek avenues of protection will be forced to wait almost a month like carol. how many women will potentially suffer like carol? what will the democrats say? sorry, we hope you can hide from your abuser for a month. madam speaker, that would be foolish as well as heartless. it would be an infringement of second amendment rights for someone who needs them the most. given the insidious flaws in this bill, do we really want to burden law-abiding victims by placing them in a never-ending cycle of background checks? of course not. this motion to recommit is a commonsense measure. it would ensure domestic violence victims, many of whom live in fear, receive the protection they need and deserve. a vote for this motion to

recommit, vote for this motion to recommit and you vote to protect domestic violence victims. a vote against the motion to recommit and you are telling victims who live in fear, sorry, we won't help you. i urge my colleagues to support this motion to recommit and i yield back the balance of my ime. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan rise? >> madam chair, i rise in opposition to this motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. police dingell: -- mrs. dingell: thank you, madam chair. the underlying bill, h.r. 1112

is a critical and carefully crafted bill to address the charleston loophole. we have discussed it here today but i will repeat, the very name, charleston loophole, is a grim reminder of the deficiency in current law that allows killers to get guns, even if a firearms background check has not been completed. this is a dangerous flaw that we can can address with a minor change to the system. when a background check cannot be completed with a three-day period, it is important that the f.b.i. work to resolve the unanswered questions presented because these are the very cases that present the most danger. unfortunately, we have seen many default proceeds go

forward in domestic violence cases, allowing an abuser to obtain a firearm even when or she is prohibited from owning one. and the statistics back that up. plurality 2014, a of default proceed transfers to prohibit a person were related to domestic violence. and in that same period, 30% of denials due to convictions for misdemeanor domestic violence were issued after the abuser took possession of the gun. my heart goes out to my colleague, mrs. lesko, because she should never have suffered from domestic violence. unfortunately, we're colleagues that both know it. i have spent more time thinking about how you keep guns out of

the hands of abusers. more probably than anybody in this chamber. i know better than most the dangers they pose. it's not easy for me to talk about it this week, but more than once -- i think of the abuser, and i will be honest on this floor, my father was mentally ill. i had to hide in that closet with my siblings, wonder -- wondering if we would live or die. one night i kept my father from killing my mother. he shouldn't have had a gun. and my mother, this is what i remember as a child, my mother went out and bought a gun and then all of us were scared to death about her gun and my father's gun. we had two guns to worry about.

no child, no woman, no man should ever have to go through that. the ditional time -- additional time provided by h.r. 1112 will help us stop more massacres, such as the one in charleston and may god -- may it prevent another child or family going through whatdy as a child. these amendments made by this motion would undermine the lifesaving improvements to current law that this bill will initiate. i he oppose -- i oppose this motion with every bit of my heart and soul and urge my colleagues to do the same.

i i now yield my remaining time to the gentleman from south carolina, mr. the distinguished hip. -- the distinguished whip. mr. clyburn: thank you so much for yielding the time. let me take this one minute to welcome to this capitol miss -- ifer, miss meliana elianian can ping knee. -- pinkney, the widow and two urviving daughters of reverend cla meanto pinkney. they hid under his desk of the basement of the emanuel a.m.e. church while a demented

gentleman wanted to start a race war, was welcomed into their bible study, and at the nd of that hour the reverend asked all of the worshipers to bow their heads and close their es as he prayed for what had occurred that evening, while they are heads were bowed, and eyes closed, dylann roof opened his after having been welcomed into their midst and he slaughtered reverend pinkney and his eight worshipers. why? because he was allowed to get this gun when he was not eligible to get one. they found out on the fifth day he was ineligible. by that point it was too late. as a result those poor souls

lost their lives. let's give the f.b.i., let as -- let's give the authorities enough time to do their jobs. we'll save lives and we will be the better off for it. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. mrs. lesko: madam speaker, i call for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes y electronic device.

pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, this five-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by five-minute votes on the passage of the bill, if ordered, and agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal, if ordered. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: the -- in this 232, the nays are 193. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the bill is passed. the ut objection, the --

gentlewoman from arizona is recognized. mrs. lesko: thank you, madam speaker. i call for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 228 and the nays are 198. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. the question is on approving the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the

ayes have it and the jourm stands approved. for what purpose does gentleman rise? >> i ask unanimous consent that the committee on judiciary be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 962 the born alive survivors protection act and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: under guidelines consistently issued by successive speakers as recorded in section 956 of the house rules and manual, the chair is constrained not to entertain the request unless it has been cleared by the bipartisan floor and committee leaderships. the gentleman is not recognized.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> unanimous consent i ask unanimous consent that the house adjourns to meet at 11 fisme 30 a.m. moaned march 4, and when the house adjourns it meet on for 12 a.m. h 2019 nor morning hour debate and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. the speaker pro tempore: for

what purpose does the gentlewoman from seek recognition? ms. speier: ask unanimous consent to address the house for the one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. speier: today, i have the great honor of reading again along with my colleague andy chas" a young boy who becomes a young girl. my favorite color has been pink. my second favorite color is silver and my third favorite color is gene. dancing, singing, back flips, drawing, soccer, swimming, makeup and pretending i'm a pop star and i love mere mades and i wear a tail in the pool. my best friends are samantha and casey. we like high heels, princess gowns. but i'm not exactly like samantha and casey, i have a girl brain, but a boy body.

this is called transgender. i was born this way. with that, madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my marks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. yoho: i would like to recognize the kindness and generosity, high springs firefighter doug holt. doug responded to a life alert emergency call for an elderly woman who lives alone. the alert was a false alarm but while assessing the woman, she he noticed her microwave wasn't working. when he realized how long since she had eaten a warm meal, he

bought her a new microwave. the high springs fire department shared the story on facebook and viewed by more than one million people. doug has remained humble. he says he hopes people are inspired to pay attention and do something for someone else. well done. your compassion and selflessness is an inspiration and thanks for being an example of passing it forward. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from minnesota seek recognition? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlewoman from is recognized for one minute. >> thank you so much. rise today in celebration of community readings and continue. mom said that being jazz would make me different from other

kids at school but being different is ok. what's important she said is that i am happy with who i am. being jazz called other people to be confused, too. at the beginning of the year, they wanted me to use the boys' bathroom and play with the boys in gym class. i was happy when the teachers changed their mind. even today there are kids who call me by a boy name or ignore me all together. then i remembered that the kids who get to know me usually want to be my friends. they say i'm one of the nicest girls in school. i don't mind being different. what matters most is what a person is like on the inside and inside i am happy and i am having fun, yam proud. i am jazz. i yield the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition?

mr. carter: ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. carter: i rise today to recognize tybee island for breaking ground on a brand new marine science center. after years of hard work and planning by the residents, local officials, business leaders and ars -- engineers, a ceremony was celebrated to start the chedule of construction. one program called sidewalk to the sea has been able to reach more than 40,000 kids and educate them about the atlantic ocean that sits a few hundred yards from the facility. the center will include exhibits a theater, a shark school, animal rescue activities and

more. it is so encouraging to see the residents of this local community taking stips to appreciate our ocean while alike.ng old and young concxds con grat layings and keep up the good work. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my marks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker, for allowing me to raise awareness for children's dental health month. i rise today because tooth dekay is the number one chronic infection disease among children in the united states. and the impact goes far beyond oral health. having been a dentist for over 30 years, i witnessed this firsthand and something i have great concern for. this is why the american dental

association has dedicated february as national children's dental health month. this annual celebration allows dent activities and volunteers to spread prevention tips that help parents, teachers and others. attitudes and habits established at an early age are critical. and oral health that lasts throughout life. ensuring that children and adults get quality and accessible oral health, care should remain a priority for everyone throughout the year. remember, if you ignore your teeth, they will go away. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise in strong opposition to the majority party's attempts to take america's second

amendment rights. the legislation before the house this week is a constitutional overreach that would limit the rights of law-abiding citizens and does not address the serious issue of illegal gun transfers. criminals do not follow the law. according to the department of justice, 77% of state prison inmates convicted of a firearm crime either obtained their firearm through theft, off the plaque market, from a drug dealer or on the street. this legislation would make criminals out of law-abiding citizens instead and infringe upon second amendment gun rights. i urge my colleagues to protect the constitutional right of the american people to protect and bear arms. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for

one minute. >> thank you very much. madam speaker, i have the honor and the privilege of being a member of the house of representatives. i also am speaking without notes because over 40 years ago, i lost a teenage friend of mine just a few yards from my front door and what was perhaps one of the first drive-bies in the history of los angeles. a senseless killing where a young man on drugs decided to shoot through a wall, someone's home, my friend's home and with one shot, rudy died at the age of 16. today, i have the honor and the privilege of voting on a bill that would make our streets safer, not solve every problem, but reduce the amount of crying and dying that goes on in too many communities around america.

and i must say this and it's unfortunate to have to clarify, because i am latino, people are assuming that the person who shot rudy was black or hispanic. he was not, a white young man. it should never happen to anyone and people should never assume that it only happens to certain people in certain communities. tens of thousands of human lives are lost every day in this country and we need to make it better. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise today to bring attention to an unsung hero. 1858 james dean was born into slavery in ocala, florida and in

pursuit of his dream, he entered howard university school of law. he had a bachelor's and master's in law and after graduating, dean returned home to florida taking a position as a school principal and establishing a law practice in key west. his practice grew so quickly he had to resign from the school and as his business grew so did his standing in the community. in 1888, he was nominated to serve as a county judge. this didn't sit well with white political leaders who conspired to remove him. they fabricated that he illegally married an interracial couple. as black history month comes to a close, do not shy away from uncomfortable moments in our history. can never make up for the harm

suffered. remembering his story makes us re knowledgeable about the just test that have been served in the community. . >> i seek permission for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. davids: thank you, madam chairwoman. and thank you to my colleagues, representatives cleaver, watkins and larson, for co-sponsoring this bipartisan piece of legislation to designate the quinn dero townsite in kansas city, kansas, as a national commemorative site. i'd also like to thank senator pat roberts for his leadership on this important issue. the bill that passed this week honors the significant history of quindero which served as a key stop on the underground railroad and helps preserve the site for future generations.

it is an important part of the united states and kansas history. in the fight for freedom and equality. it serves as a reminder of a dark chep ter in our nation's hift -- chapter in our nation's history. sadly, for too long it has lacked proper investments needed to preserve it as a historic site. but the community leaders in kansas never gave up on fighting for quindero. a kansas city, kansas, nate who have spent over 30 years working for this legislation to pass now plans to use the site to improve racial relations in the community. and to educate people about our shared history. i'm proud to protect quindero's history and keep its story alive for future generations. thank you again. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. lamalfa: thank you, madam speaker. this week the new democrat majority has endangered more

americans with this push for more and more gun control. now, by definition, criminals don't follow the law. riminals don't honor gun laws. they steal. they commit murder. all sorts of crimes. without permission. they don't seek permission. when they take something from you. when they enter your home. they don't seek permission to become gun owners. yet what happens here in the legislation this week limits the rights, limits the ability for people to defend themselves, defend their own homes, defend their own families by having less options or less ability to get a weapon, if they need it. especially timely. these measures do not work, they do not work to stop the shootings that are often cited as the reason to deny people a second amendment right in country. indeed, it is a political agenda that gets pushed, pushed, pushed, every election, every possible time in legislation, and finally with the majority

they have, they're able to push this stuff through. and harm innocent americans. and their ability to defend themselves. this has to come to a stop. i hope the senate will defeat this measure. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: are there any other special requests for one-minutes? under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2019, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. gohmert: thank you, madam speaker. i do appreciate the speaker's new policy that says a member of congress can only have one in al order which they're

charge of the time each week, once a week. because i've been trying to get republicans to take our time, much of the way my colleague debbie wasserman schultz and the group they call the 30-somethings did in 2005 and 2006. and have not had a great deal of success in getting a lot of people to take special order time. but with this new rule and some of the terrific freshmen that we've got, who have come in, some of the folks that have been here a term or two, they're stepping up and taking our time to discuss critically important issues for our country. today i'm it for my party. and honored to be here. 've heard a lot of talk, and

the reason we've heard a lot of talk is because there's truth in seeing a double standard at the department of justice for a number of years now. there was a time when it was the department of justice that jeff sessions remembered back in the 1980's during his time as u.s. attorney. that time changed. with top people in the f.b.i., top people in the d.o.j., it became no longer about justice but just us. and what we want at the d.o.j. and at the f.b.i. again, talking to former justice attorneys, prosecutors, one dear friend in texas, not in my district, but a very dear friend, we were talking about how the things that were done by the people, including rosenstein, former u.s. attorney

paige, all of these other people. incredible, just incredible. and i would include mueller in that. mueller as f.b.i. director, i continue to believe, did more damage to the f.b.i. during his 12 years as the director of the anyone, even the problems that j. edgar hoover created, especially in his later years. the wiretapping that he did of people, that should not have been wiretapped. of course he didn't just do it on his own. as i recall, attorney general kennedy had supported wiretapping martin luther king

jr., if i remember correctly. t what we have seen in the unmasking of american citizens who have been followed by email, by wire -- or not taps, but just following their conversations, as the n.s.a. and our intelligence community is able to do these days, absolutely incredible. hundreds and hundreds of americans were unmasked. we were assured with the patriot act when it was up for being renewed that -- re-authorized, oh, no, we are so careful to make sure that we don't capture americans that should not be captured unless they're involved with a terrorist organization or a known foreign terrorist. they don't get picked up. but now they're talking to a

terrorist, a known foreign agent, then it's possible they could be picked up. but those names are masked. they're never unmasked. that's too big of a burden. then we find out under the obama administration, the american people have had their privacy , democrats -- like democrats and republicans alike swore to us would not happen. well, it's happened. and it's continued to go on. i'd hoped that christopher wray would clean things up at the f.b.i. but he appears to be more concerned about covering up problems rather than cleaning up the problems. saw a good example of that at the end of august, when once again the intelligence community had made clear, they sent their investigator, frank rucker, over

strzok, and peter 100%plain that we now have proof, there is no question, hillary clinton's private email server was hacked, they imbedded a direction into her server that forced every email coming in and going out into what has now been disclosed publicly, by others, was a chinese intelligence agency front. they were getting every one of hillary clinton's -- over 30,000 emails to and from. there were four that were glitches. but otherwise over 30,000 emails. so that must include the ones that president obama sent using

another name so people wouldn't realize it was him using her private server. the ere was also president's daily intelligence briefings that went through her home. she had somebody at the home print them out for her, without any security clearance. there were all kinds of violations, what appear from the code to be outright crimes. but the double standard appears to continue. this from february 25, from cns news, terrence jeffrey reporting that the inspector general says, prosecution was declined for a senior department of justice official who sexually assaulted a subordinate. and goesen to talk about that. the name is not disclosed. he sexually harassed

subordinates, sexual assaulted yet another. and then lacked candor, that's the d.o.j. explanation for people they don't want to prosecute, when they're actually saying they lied, committed a crime. but lied when the i.g. investigated this matter. so, the unnamed prosecutor or prosecutors were not disclosed. but allowed to retire, no onsequences. though guilty of sexual assault in the d.o.j. now, there were a lot of things i disagreed with, with a late former federal judge in texas named william justice, but one thing i agreed with him on, and i heard him tell people, you

, w, you of all people peoplelly knew better -- especially knew better the -- better. and he would come down hard on someone like this, who had been part of the d.o.j. i would imagine judge justice, if he were around, he would throw the book at somebody who worked in justice and still committed a crime and abused the system. i could hear him still today coming after somebody like that. but not in the d.o.j. we've got lots of carry-over from the obama years and i know my friend jeff sessions called them career people because they were in career slots. but he was talking about people that loved sali yates, thought she did the right thing in refusing to defend constitutional positions taken by the trump administration. and yet many of those people are

still there, undercutting president trump, undercutting matt whitaker when he was acting, and no doubt will be undercutting attorney general barr. so this is a real problem. when the justice department, the one we counted on for many decades now, if there was something wrong, whether it's civil rights or others, and the ce could not be found, department of justice could be counted on to come in and pursue real justice. to their credit. and as f.b.i. agents and prosecutors, some retired now, from the department of justice ve privately conveyed to me,

they're brokenhearted over the daniel done to the department of justice and the f.b.i. because -- damage done to the department of justice and the f.b.i. because they became so calloused and so self-absorbed and so political that they have damaged not only the f.b.i., not only the department of justice, but this country. when you have willing , lies in the alt-left media certainly these days, it's a understandable that that same feeling of desperation by american people where we turn and the justice department isn't honest, you could on trust the media. you could find somebody that would do such great

investigative journalism that they would get to the heart of it and bring something to the forefront to the point that american people would become outraged and would force either elected or appointed officials of the federal government to do something. ut here we have alt-left mainstream media saying there is no crisis on our border. and yet, if you just look at the things that were said by obama officials about same problems, except now exacerbated on our border with the kara vans that have come, and are coming and continue to be established in central america, it's amazing. how some of these media outlets can even continue to call themselves journalists.

article from brian flood, january 10 this year points out that news outlets readily describe a crisis at our border under then president obama when he sought funding to deal with a surge of migrants, many of them women and children. but now that president trump is in the white house, the mainstream media seem far more reluctant to use that word. in back in the summer of 2014, headlines and stories referring to the crisis word were plentiful as the border surge the aken seriously along corridor. he "washington post" now alt-left medium wrote in 2014, white house requests $3.7

billion in emergency funds as a border crisis. there's that c word, crisis. while cnn published a feature, quote, daniel's journey, how thousands of children are creating a crisis in america. they described it as epic proportions. around the nt out same time, huffington post declared photos of the humanitarian crisis, even huffington called it a crisis along the southern border, was shocking. bc news reported obama requested the money, quote, to

cope with the humanitarian crisis on the border and the spike in illegal crossings by unaccompanied minors from central america. abc news story even mentioned this word to deal with plans for 3.7 billion and this was abc's headline. immigration crisis funds. incredible. nbc, june, 2014, andrea mitchell said the undocumented children flooding the border, were, in her words, creating a crisis for authorities. how these news outlets can turn around and now say there's no crisis when the testimony, the

evidence is clear. the overall numbers for last year have been down, but as the testimony and evidence makes clear, october, november, december, january, those numbers spiked to numbers that our border patrol has not dealt with before and minors and family units, why would they sull of a sudden spike during that time? because it appeared the democrats had a chance of taking the majority here in the house and in so doing democrats have made clear they wanted to continue to allow illegal immigration. and elcomed the families

naturally, you were going to see a spike. now, i have called it these people below our southern border, mexico, sebt central america, south america and now coming from the middle east, and been coming for some time from other countries, they are being lured in -- the head of the border patrol testified this week in our committee said it is being pulled in. if they come now, we have people in charge of the house of representatives that want us there and they are going to try to stop the president from enforcing and securing our border. so now's the time to come. and they're coming. about 80%he testimony

of the people that came across decades past, hey were normally male adults. and it made sense. usually it was people that were coming looking for work and going to send money to their families back in mexico. but as the word got out the end of last year and this year that if you will come and bring a minor child, whether it's your child or not, then you've got a good chance of staying in the country. and we know that nobody crosses our border illegally on the south unless they have gotten permission by paying the drug cartels. and over and over during the

nights i have spent on the border, the question has been asked where did you get the money to pay to come. oh, a thousand here, thousand from people in the u.s. well, what about the rest of the money you have to pay. they are going to let me work it off when i get where i'm going. and that would normally have an address. and as i understand it, that's often the address the drug cartel tells them where to go and get set up to work off the drug cartels. shouldn't be surprised when you see headlines meth lab in a major u.s. city is busted, run by the drug cartels. and as the department of homeland security, folks have pointed out to me before, yeah,

the drug cartels call us their logistics. all they have to do is get somebody illegally in the country and hand us an address of somebody supposedly where they know they can live and we ship them to wherever they want to go. sometimes they're detained, but we have shipped millions of people around, all over the country. and if what they have told the border patrol what they have to do is true, i haven't seen or heard any reason why they wouldn't be, then our homeland security department for a decade or so has been shipping people to the location where the drug cartels want them. the drug cartels are making billions and billions of dollars a year. and when you hear any mexican or

central american official that says we want to keep the american border open, you can just pretty well guarantee, they are getting money from the drug cartels. the best thing, the most caring and loving thing we could do for our neighbors to the south would be to secure our border, put border barriers where they need it, whether it's a wall, 30-foot barrier, whatever, secure the border and then that will cut off the billions of dollars of american money going to the drug cartels for them to terrorize people in mexico. and people in central america. you care about people south of our border, of course we can't

bring in all those millions that are suffering under drug cartel rule and rmp e inch gn, but we could secure our border and cut off the domestic terrorists called the drug cartels, cut off their funding so they won't be able to pay people to cut off the heads of police chiefs or mayors that take a strong stand against the drug cartels and put those heads on a pike as an who want to stand up against the drug cartels. used to be there was a policy that we're not going to allow , kind of crime of violence tourists, because that is too important for mexico.

tourists are killed and for the day- i long when my wife and i can go back to where we honeymooned in mexico, back to where we celebrated affers is is cyst, it's wonderful -- anniversaries. wonderful. drive the ur border, money of the drug cartels, then the money can begin flowing to mexico for something besides drugs. and we can cut off the fentanyl and the massive amount of drugs that pours across our southern border undetected. i know some people say, but the majority of dugs are coming through the ports of entry.

that's where they catch more of it. when they were showing us, d.e.a., the british people had were fighting the drug farcs down in columbia under the president, saying this guy fearless. he's amazing. he is fighting the drug cartels down there. but i said, so, you are saying about 2/3 of the cocaine, the drugs from colombia comes up through the gulf of mexico into mexico so it can cross our southern border. another third apparently goes up to california, trying to -- goes into mexico across our southern border. they have boats that will go that far, why not pull up to a

texas or california beach that's desserted. and these colombian and british drug experts explained, it's because the drug cartels are business people. they have a business hodell. they have a business plan. they play the odds. and they know the odds are many times better, they can get the drugs into america if they don't go to a port of entry. they don't go to an abandoned beach somewhere. they bring it in to mexico, having cross crossed the u.s.-mexico border and will get the drugs in. so that's their business plan. and that's still going on. it was going on during president bush's administration, probably back clinton and former bush and even reagan to a lesser extent.

but it's sure going on, has in the 21st century. and with all the discussion about there not being a crisis when clearly it has been and is, it's a humanitarian crisis, but it's also a crisis of u.s. sovereignty. we cannot have we cannot have a country that's based on laws if we cannot control our own borders. we will be overwhelmed, as we have been by more and more people who do not observe the laws, do not think the laws are important. they do not understand, they've not been educated how important it is to enforce the law fairly across the board. they don't know what it is to reserve self-government.

and franklin knew that. benjamin franklin, when he said, it's a republic, madam, if you can keep it. he knew. he had studied history. as had our founders. they knew that the constitution that came together, as washington referenced, it had to have divine providence at work, because no way these guys who started out for five weeks doing nothing but yelling at each other could have come up with a document that was the best governing document, best constitution put together in the history of man kind. but, well, here's more about the media's hypocrisy. article from "the washington examiner."

this has a quote. we now have an actual humanitarian crisis, there's that c word again, on the border that only underscores the need to drop the politics, fix our immigration system once and for all, and that was a quote from then-president barack obama in the rose garden in 2014. he went on to say, president obama, in recent weeks we've seen a surge of unaccompanied children arrive at the border. brought here and to other countries by smugglers and traffickers. well, that's basically, as "the examiner" points out, what president trump said. he said, quote, last month 20,000 migrant children were illegally brought into the united states, a dramatic increase. these children are used as human pawns by vicious coyotes and

ruthless gangs. this article says, the only difference is how the media is covering it. "the washington post" said in this the current crisis -- is "the washington post" words, the current crisis on the southwest border, where authorities have apprehended tens of thousands of unaccompanied central american children since october, well, there you are, there's that c rd, they use then and now, belittle the word being used now . anyway. this article from "the new york times," from 2014, an article from "the new york times." they said, talking about the border crossing into texas, quote, it's an urgent humanitarian situation.

their article sathe said, let's remember -- their article said, let's remember -- oh, this is from senator marco rubio. this administration, talking about the obama administration, went around for years saying the border has never been more secure than it is now. i think, this is marco rubio, that that's been exposed as a fallacy over the last three weeks. and that's because people were realizing it was a border crisis during the obama years, and just the fact that it has gone on for years and years does not diminish the crisis, it actually exacerbates the crisis. and when you put the october, november, december, january numbers, record numbers of people coming in claiming to be family units. why? because they've heard if they have minor children, then they

will be allowed to stay and they will be allowed to keep the minor children. a dark market,ng a criminal market in children. make sure if you're coming to america you got a child in your group, because then you claim, oh, we can't be separated. and as the director of border patrol pointed out this week in testimony under oath, now the uge majority are people that are coming as -- claiming to be family units. most of them are. but we don't know. that's why it's important to check.

so, this is a time of crisis. nd you would hope that major media, whether it's alt-left or whatever, would be reporting what's happening in america. it is a humanitarian crisis, as they acknowledged during president obama's term. it's even more of a humanitarian crisis now that there are so many more minor children that are being brought here. and once again, for those who bring up the term war on women, 1/3about the fact that over of the young girls, the young women that are brought through our southern border illegally, being sexually assaulted, raped, normally multiple times along the way.

do people not care what's happening? wouldn't that be a war on women, hat some of us want to stop? and the estimate by doctors that have been treating these people, ying 17%, 17% of the young boys coming up and crossing into the u.s. illegally have been sexually molested, assaulted. where is the outrage? it ought to be from both sides of the aisle. these are people whose lives are just being terrorized. and when we hear about, oh, well, people are just caring about their families. really? you would subject your daughter to having being one of the 1/3 that is sexually raped

numetrimes? -- numerous times? while you want to come in to america? you'd do that to your daughter? we ought to be helping mexico, they're not helping much, they're helping some, but we ought to be shorg up the border. it's the -- shoring up the border. it's the best thing we can do for mexico. continue to be the most generous country in the world, in the history of the world, and allowing people to come in to our country legally, keep that going. it's good for america. but stop the drug cartels from controlling our southern border. it ought to be our authorities controlling our border, nobody else. and if that's not enough, here comes what's been called a green new deal.

some have accurately called it more of a green socialist manifesto. a green raw deal. rick manning has a great article this month. everyone's talking about the green new deal, how it would end domestic air travel, the internal combustion engine, fossil fuel usage, most electricity generation, and even ban cow flat lance. you have groups guessing what the cost of the green new deal would be in terms of dollars on an annual basis. everyone seeking to normalize the green new deal, please shut up. the green new deal is the bearing -- baring of tooth by the new american communist. a new breed unleashed that we have seen in the streets attacking people attending trump rallies, screaming at teenagers wearing make america great hats,

shouting down and rioting against conservative speakers on college campuses. here's the truth. socialism and communism are evil. putting a she roud of legitimacy and -- shroud of legitimacy and normalcy to the destruction of the american ideal is being a bollshy vic revolution. you cannot moderate the blood lust of those who seek to enslave you by trying to come up with common ground or discuss alternatives to meet their needs. their revolution demands immediate payment. so let's talk -- stop talking about the symptoms, which the new green deal represents, and actually begin to dissect the isease that is collectism. the only difference between socialism and communism is if you voluntarily surrender your

reedom and wealth, or if it is confiscated. either alternative ultimately comes from the coercive power of the gun and are based upon the premise that those who have attained wealth used ill-gotten means to get it. as a result, they have no moral authority to keep it from those from whom it presumably was stolen. in socialism and communism, individual rights are not derived from god and guaranteed by the constitution. instead, everything you have and can expect comes from the goodwill of the government. it's no mistake that jon lennon's socialist anthem starts with the following words. imagine there's no heaven. it's easy if you try. no hell below us. above us, only sky. imagine all the people living for today. in order to achieve a kingdom

ruled by man, unfettered by morality or rules, you have to nix a sovereign god from the equation. if there's no god, then all rights are nothing more than those that the government chooses to allow you to have. and the only protections that exist are those which they grant. the only question is, who gets to be the one holding the keys over everyone else's life? and this is what on one hand surprises me about billionaires in america funding a move toward socialism. now, obviously these are not stupid people. they can look at the history of socialism, communism. they know that whether it's socialist or communist, you got two classes. you eliminate the middle class.

there is no middle class. so you have this small group of ruling class and then you got everybody else. all the miserables. and i guess they think they get us to socialism, they'll be part of that elite socialist class that rules over everybody else. i've seen it. the summer i lived in the soviet union. when it was the real soviet union. there were some nice things but it was clear they didn't have freedom. the government watched through spies everything that those people did. i asked on one occasion, why is that lady running off? well shearks going to go report me, he -- well, she's going to go report me, he said. why would she go report you? you're not anything to her. no, in your country you can get ahead by making money. in my country, he said, we get

ahead by stepping on others. so anybody you can turn in for anything, anybody that you can step on, tellvates you in our system here in the soviet union. he was right. and that's where we're headed with people thinking socialism is a good way to go. the bumper sticker's true. a big problem with socialism is you can vote your way into it, but you'll have to shoot your way out. and that's what we are seeing played out in venezuela. they voted themselves into it. and now they're having to shoot their way out. unfortunately for most of them they don't have guns, so they're pretty empty-handed in fighting a government that has the guns. it's a tragic situation. should be one of the most prosperous countries in the world. temperatures. until socialism took over.

and again, as rick manning's trying to point out, it's where we're headed. it makes one wonder if, oh, no, he said, has given up 100% doctor ono has given up 100% of her songwriter royalties as a show of solidarity for the dream. here's what they don't say, he says. in order for the world to live as one with no possessions, someone's going to have to take all the stuff and hold it collectively for the common good . in order for there to be stuff to take, and most importantly, eat in the future, someone's going to have to do the hard work to produce it. someone's going to have to figure out how to produce it. someone's going to have to get it from where it is produced to where the brotherhood is living. and then someone's going to have to distribute it, being certain that everyone gets the same amount of gruel. . i saw that, too, back in the stores in the soviet union. if you were part of that elite

ruling class, they might -- they would keep back a really nice pair of shoes, maybe the only pair they got, for the highest ranking person that they dealt with. in the stores, the soviets would tell me, we never find toilet paper. they hold it in the back, you know, for the ruling class. we never find good, fresh vegetables. they hold that back for the ruling class. arely tragic the way people treated really in a socialist or communist society are now called progressivists. so good article by brad palumbo, february 26. how socialism destroys private charity and hurts the poor. it is tragic between what we see destroying the rule of law in

america, coming across our southern border illegally, overwhelming our schools. how fair is it? if you really care about children, how fair is it to this big group of children in school and as teachers have pointed out to me, i love my kids. i love the kids that come in and don't speak english, but they throw them into a class of english speakers because we're required to educate them and we have to stop teaching, basically, the english-speaking citizens and residents and go to teaching the new kids that just got thrown in. no fault of their own. but those that suffer are the kids. they have dreams but unfortunately for them they were either born here and came here

illegally but their dreams will be put on hold. they won't be as educated well because we have not secured our southern border an children that don't speak the same language are thrown into their classes and they're harming the dreams and the hopes of the children that were here. so is the solution to welcome in 30 million or so people from mexico? no. it would overwhelm this country, and there would be no place for people to flee to when they're from to find real asylum danger. the better thing is, just enforce the law. secure the border. cut off the flow of money to the and allow people to live freely here without

worrying about extra crime that wouldn't be here if people eren't here illegally. it's about preserving the republic that founders gave us. that weut acknowledging have as a nation been more blessed than any nation in the history of the world. solomon's israel didn't have the individual opportunities, individual assets, the freedoms that we have. en a majority of americans fail to recognize that we have een blessed by god and his protective hand has secured our

andon, then those blessings that protective hand will disappear and we will be the once great cam lot where people could -- camelot where people could live free and they could keep what they grew, built, earned. that once great country where people were treated the same, whether poor or rich. they were treated the same under the law. that once great country. wow. what a dream. how did it go wrong? well, we just talked about it, and it's time we did something together to stop it. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2019, the

gentlewoman from the district of columbia, ms. norton, is recognized for 60 minutes as the esignee of the of the majority leader. ms. norton: thank you, madam speaker. this week was for all intents and purposes d.c. statehood's week in the capitol. i am pleased today senator arper has announced that he is introducing today the d.c. admissions act to make the district of columbia the 51st state. i am so grateful to senator a record garnered number of senate co-sponsors last year and has been a most

vigorous champion of statehood for the district of columbia. i come to the floor for my first time this session because we have many new members who may be under the mistaken impression that the 700,000 people who live in your nation's capital are treated in the same way that your own residents are. i beg to differ. in this city, the citizens do not have each and every right in this congress. to be sure, we have what is called home rule, and i will later indicate that even that is limited. this unique or place for the capital in the world left without full rights of other citizens really has to

with a quirk, an accident where the framers came to believe that the capital should not be part of the state because they were in the beginning parts of various states and they felt they could not then control what the capital would do. well, of course, we don't want a capital to be part of a state. but they didn't really envision statehood, the capital as a state because they were -- they were thinking of the 13 colonies . every city had to be in a state, they can only think of putting the city in a state. well, i tell you what. we are about 218 years beyond that, and it is time, way past time, shall i say overdue in time to understand how the nation's capital of the greatest

nation in the world should be viewed and what rights its citizens should have. so i'm very grateful to senator carper for the work he's done and for his introduction of the bill in the senate this week, the counterpart of the d.c. statehood bill, which i have lready introduced. the bill i have already introduced already has 198 co-sponsors. i bet you -- i haven't looked closely, but there's probably no bill in the hopper that has more co-sponsors than the d.c. statehood bill. it's not bipartisan yet. that will happen. because this is how we make progress on matters in the house of representatives. we go one house at a time. remember, the district doesn't have any representation in the senate. and yet, we have gotten a distinguished senator to introduce the statehood bill,

d he has been most energetic getting the majority of the democratic senators on the bill ext -- last session. but i am really moved today because of the record number of c. residents and their colleagues who came to the house nd the senate yesterday to demand that they have equal rights with all other american itizens. i was -- i went down to a room full of residents who had visited every office to tell many residents what they don't now.

i'm grateful, particularly, that the speaker of the house, nancy pelosi, has strongly endorsed d.c. statehood. i believe that means that d.c. statehood will be on the floor this session. i want to thank our speaker for d.c. d.c. priority -- statehood a priority and indicating in her own words how important it is that every citizen be treated equally to every other citizen. in the same way, oversight and government reform committee chairman, elijah cummings, has committed to holding a hearing on d.c. statehood, and i will

predict this afternoon on the get that that bill will out of committee and come to the floor of the house for a vote. the progress we're making on in statehood is also seen the inclusion of our statehood demands in what is called h.r. 1. that is an all-democracy bill that tries to improve and make sure that full democracy in every form is present in the united states. -- .r. 1 are extended extensive findings for d.c. statehood. i thank the democratic majority for including the district of columbia and its plea for statehood in this all-important pro-democracy bill.

it is called the for the people act. h.r. 1 was the first bill ntroduced. most members who come to the congress come knowing only that the nation's capital is where all of these wonderful memorial buildings are. they know that it is a tourist mecca. many may have come as children or even as adults as tourists. they probably don't know that 30 million visitors from all over the world visit our nation's capital. in other words, most members of the house who, by the way, will spend more time in the district

of columbia than they will spend at home still don't know very much about their own capital ity. they probably don't know that ly in america does the legislature not grant full representation to their capital city. well, i have just voted on the house floor. did e on amendments, but i not vote on the final bill. i do vote in what is called the committee of the whole. the reason i'm able to vote on that is when i first came to congress in 1991 i noted i could

indeed vote in committee. and then i knew there was something called the committee of the whole. what's the difference of voting in committee like a transportation and infrastructure committee, for example, where i've always served and voted, what's the difference between that and the committee of the whole? no difference. both are committees that were created by the congress, not the constitution. so since i vote in committee i asked for the right to vote in the committee of the whole and was granted but only in america, again, could the following happen. my republican friends sued the house for allowing the vote in the committee of the whole. , courts looked at that pronounced the right of the congress to give that vote in the committee of the whole just as the district has the vote in

committee and my republican then appealed. at the court of appeals, the verdasco -- the vert was, yes, the -- the verdict was, yes, the district of columbia should vote in the committee of the whole just as they vote in committee and i must tell you that my good republican friends didn't quite have the nerve to appeal that one to the supreme court. but what they did do when we lost the house two years later was to take away a vote that the courts had said was legitimate from residents of the district of columbia who are number one per capita in taxes paid to support the government of the united states and therein lies the outrageous anomaly. those who pay the most taxes per capita have the least rights. that is why we are determined to

get our rights. i couldn't vote on the final bill. but i could vote on those amendments. they were important amendments relating to background checks. by the way, something like 97% of the american people in one poll were shown to favor background checks. that just means you check to see if somebody has criminal background and shouldn't have a gun. what is the controversy in that one? so i was able to vote on those two amendments. this is all by self-help. thinking through. what is it i can do to make sure the people i represent have the maximum of representation they

can? i sure am not crying about what i cannot do, when you consider what i can do. i'm chair of the most important subcommittee now. in the transportation and infrastructure committee. through that committee, i have been able to rebuild whole parts of the district of columbia. , the thwest water front southeast water front, capital riverfront, parts of washington like noma. so, yes, i have been able to do a great deal. that is not the issue. the issue is equal deal. not equal for me personally. equal for those i represent who have paid their dues without etting their rights.

when i say pay their dues, i want to elaborate on that. the city i represent has one of the strongest economies in the nation. it has a budget of about $14 billion. that's larger than the budget of 12 states. poor, tes are crying trying to tax or not tax their residents. embroiled in that controversy. the city i represent has a $2 billion surplus. it's per capita income. the per capita income of the americans who live in your capital city is higher than that of any state. now, we're about the equivalent

, our perf seven states capita income, though, is higher than that of any state. take your biggest states, texas and new york and california, higher per capita income that tells you about how much economic activity there is in your nation's capital. this city, which is something of a city state, has residents whose personal income is higher than that of seven states. we do not cry poor. and our population growth is among the highest in the nation. people want to live in your nation's capital. t's one of the most pleasant

livable cities. what do they pay per capita in taxes? $12,000 per resident in taxes to support a government that does ot give them equal rights. . r armed forces armed forces with representatives from every state . t should be known -- every state, it should be known, always has had residents of the district of columbia who fought and died never war, including the war that created the united states, the revolutionary war. you, of course, are aware of that war. a war that was fought for taxation without representation. no wonder district residents are

demanding that our congress live up to that great slogan and tandard. now, as i indicated, it's not as if i don't have any rights. the congress passed the home rule act in 1974. i will speak later about the deficiencies of the home rule act. what that means -- but that means that the city does have its own elected mayor and its own elected legislature, its council. and how did we get that? well, first of all, it took over 100 years after the civil war. the first home rule was given to the capital city by republicans who had fought and won the civil

war, where those in my party had fought on the side of slavery. republicans fought on the side of freedom and when it saw it had a capital that did not have the freedom, it gave the district home rule. now, the republicans had rather much lost their way as the democrats certainly had for more than 100 years. but when richard nixon was president of the united states, the home rule act was passed. and i would just like to read a few of his words. he said, in signing the bill, as a long-time supporter of self-government for the district of columbia, i am pleased to sign into law a measure which is of historic significance for the citizens of our nation's capital . he went on to say, i, that's

richard nixon now, first voted for home rule as a member of the house of representatives in 1949 -- or is it 1948? and i have endorsed the enactment of home rule legislation during both my terms as president. this was bipartisan finally. and republicans, that party, that postwar party, postpost-world war ii party, deserves credit for understanding that the time had come for capital city to have home resume. -- rule. that home rule was not complete, in the sense that, and most district budget as to come here and it becomes a foil on which to press

amendments, to overturn laws that people may not like. i've been able to defeat most of those riders, as we call them, or attempts to take down d.c. laws. but the d.c. budget shouldn't ome here at all. i recognized that while pursuing statehood i could get close to statehood by simply finishing the home rule act and making it whole and complete. and so i have embarked on a two-track road. one, of course, is the one i have just discussed. d.c. statehood. but the other is what i call free and equal d.c. bills. bills that together bring us close to statehood. and one of them is this -- and i started with a congressional

, a congressional review amendment. this one is really nonsensical. the district passes a law, ultimately most of those laws matter not to the congress and certainly aren't overturned. but the home rule act says that the law shall not become final for 30 days. and that is 30 consecutive days. the house is not in session consecutive days. this is thursday, for example, we're out, so i don't know if it's four days this week that would be counted, but you have to count up until you get to 30 days. and then of course the bill can become law. well, it always does. o one uses this particular power at all. if they want to overturn government, d.c. laws, rather,

then they simply try to attach it to appropriations, as they come. so this is completely unused, it's terribly burdensome on the city. because you simply have to keep renewing -- these bills that have been passed in the district, until you get finally through the 30-day period. ridiculous. not used by the congress. burdensome on the city. should and could be gotten rid of without anyone noticing it in the congress or caring about it. so i began with that one. which the congress can't possibly care about because it doesn't even use it ever. but look at some of the other things that could be done even without statehood. which is leading me to embark on this two-track system. for example, the drk d.c. does

not have a -- the district of columbia does not have a local prosecutor, like a district attorney, for example. or a state's attorney. the u.s. attorney for the district of columbia, a federal official not chosen by the district of columbia, but by the president of the united states, district ofntially, attorney for the district of columbia. we have no say in this. and that u.s. attorney has a jurisdiction that has nothing to do with what u.s. attorneys do in other states. it's local law, 90% of what the u.s. attorney has as jurisdiction is local law like he law the d.a. would enforce. 10%, sometimes 15% of his work is federal. we want to send him back to get -- to all of his federal work, give him time to do all of that. so that we'd have a local prosecutor.

that is one of the bills that this congress could pass, house and senate, and hardly think about it, because it's certainly uncontroversial. that the city have its own law enforcement officer to enforce its criminal laws. and this is a national guard rule act. that is the equivalent of what i'm speaking of when i say that the congress should have no interest, only the district. the national guard cannot be called out in the event, for example, of a hurricane or a huge snowfall or a flood. only the president of the united states can. the president of the united states does not need to be to red with tasks related

ordinary emergencies in the district of columbia. so somehow the mayor would have to find the president and say, please call out the national guard. that's local national guard. we don't want jurisdiction over the national guard when it comes to national matters. we want the same jurisdiction that the states have. the states have the right to call out the national guard to protect their residents when there are natural disasters. that's essentially what we're asking for. so that too is part of my free and equal d.c. series. there are 20 rules. home rule clemency act. i investigated how often lemency is allowed or has been afforded, and i found only one instance. and i tell you why. the president of the united states alone can offer clemency

to someone who has broken local law. do you think he bothers or for that matter should bother? that's why there's almost no one who gets clemency in the district of columbia. these are the kind of local matters that are holdovers, absolute holdovers from the days when the district are no home rule. we can't possibly hold our heads up as a democracy and have matters like this that cannot be attended at the local level. now, occasionally someone comes forward with the notion that, awe, we understand, congresswoman. we want to make sure that residents have the same rights as the residents of the nation's capital have the same rights as other places. and here's what we'd like to do. e came out a portion of land

contributed by the state of maryland, so why not return the district of columbia to maryland? then, you would get your full and equal rights. well, first thing you ought to do is ask maryland about that. then, you might ask the district of columbia. and here i have the answers, i think. tatehood is endorsed by 86% of d.c. residents. retrosession, as it's called, has no constituency either in maryland or in the district. this is how i know that. there was a poll taken in maryland asking whether or not they thought the district of columbia should be returned to maryland.

now, understand, maryland is a very progressive jurisdiction, but it only has one big city. that's the city of baltimore. it apparently is not welcoming of another city, which has formed its own identity as a state or -- and for that reason has an identity as a big city. so i am not surprised that a poll of maryland legislators found that 92% of maryland senators oppose retrosession of the district to maryland, and 82% of maryland delegates -- that's their lower house -- pposed retrosession. there are no easy answers. taking a city that is almost as old as the nation itself, the

district became the capital city in 1801. somehow finding some easy answer, which turns out to be even harder. it's hard enough to get the congress to recognize statehood. now, suppose we have to go to maryland in the case of retrosession and d.c. to get that particular answer. that's a harder road to climb. it's not democratic because that is not what maryland wants and that is not what the district of columbia wants. it's a very mechanical answer to a very deep problem. i indicated i just voted on the congress in the committee of the whole, and i voted now in this new congress, which is about eight weeks old, two or three

times. each votes with great significance to my citizens. it encourages them they will have a vote, not only in the committee of the whole, but they will have a vote where every .ther american has a vote or them, i can only say that they have overpaid in every conceivable way for equal rights . yes, by fighting and dying in ery war and, yes, in federal larger -- per capita than n number in amount other citizens. for me it's a labor of love because i was born and raised here. am the daughter of a runaway

slave who ran away from virginia . it's interesting that he ran away and found himself and settled in the district of columbia as an illegal immigrant, i suppose, a runaway slave, but there was work here and he found work on the city helping too raise -- build the city. they were building the roads of the city at that time in the 1830's. it was no part of his vision that the district would ever have the same rights as other americans. certainly no part of his vision as then still a slave that he would have anything to do with it. so this afternoon, as i think about my city and strive for its

quality, i think of my great-grandfather, richard holmes, who sought freedom for himself and his family the only way he could by simply walking off of a plantation and making his way to the district of name, i am in his honored to seek more of that freedom and equality for the 700 americans -- 700,000 americans who now live in our nation's capital. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from the district of columbia seek recognition?

ms. norton: i move to adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until 11:30 a.m. on monday next.

mr. mcclintock: this institution doesn't go without knowledge. the democrats are considering changing our -- >> we will show you later in our program schedule. also see it online. c-pac. ering of a discussion of criminal justice reform. this is live on c-span.