Doug Collins

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Look, I have great sympathy for what the gentleman from South Carolina just spoke of. But, also, I have even greater sympathy for the fact it could have been avoided and had nothing, frankly, to do at the end when the FBI under Mr. Comey actually admitted that there were mistakes made. The FBI could have stopped that instead of letting it happen. They saw problems. They let it go. It could have stopped. This was already in law, Madam Chair. It could have stopped. Yes, what I laid out for you is not just simply 20 business days, when you look at the fact that, coupled with other restrictions, it can do what we said. I have great sympathy and grief for every loss of life, no matter where it comes from. But to simply say that this would have fixed it, when the FBI and others knew they could have fixed it at that moment and could have went later and got the guns, because there was a delay even in the horrific act that happened--again, we are simply talking about what is on the paper. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cline).

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, here we go again. Just like yesterday, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted to criminalize the transfer of a firearm between two law-abiding citizens. Today, they further reveal this interest by bringing up a bill that would prohibit law-abiding citizens from ever being able to acquire firearms. And that is not hyperbole, Madam Chair; it is fact. Let me briefly explain how that would happen. Allow me to walk through the mechanics of this legislation. Let's start at the beginning of the month. Assume I went to a Federal firearms licensee, an FFL, to purchase a firearm on Friday, February 1, of this month. Under H.R. 1112, the FBI's NICS system has 10 business days to respond to the FFL. The tenth business day is a Friday, February the 15th. If, after those 10 business days, NICS does not okay the transfer, I must file a petition with the Department of Justice certifying that I have no reason to believe that I am prohibited by Federal, State, or local law from purchasing or possessing a firearm. Once that petition is filed, the NICS system has an additional 10 days to make a determination. That would be Monday, March 5, in our example because February 18 was a Federal holiday and not a business day. If, at the conclusion of the 20 business days waiting period, NICS does not deny the transfer, I could then acquire the firearm. But wait, Madam Chair. Under existing law, the NICS background check is only valid for 30 calendar days from the date it is initiated. Under our example, that would be Saturday, March the 2nd, which is 2 days before my petition is required to be acted upon. At that point, I would be required to start the process over again entirely. There could be no end to this cycle. Now, I am not sure if H.R. 1112 was written this way out of just messed-up writing or malice. I am not sure. But it does do this, and there is no mistaking what is written. As I have said many times, we do not vote on aspirational ideas in this Chamber. They are great to debate, but we do not vote on aspirational ideas. We vote on words on paper, and words on paper are just as I have described. I will let the American people determine what the intent was here. However, as I noted yesterday, in the rush to put this to the floor, they did not bother to fix some several major issues. We also know, as we go forward in this that this indefinite and perpetual delay of the transfer of firearms to law-abiding citizens is perhaps the intent of this bill. Keep in mind, under current law, an FFL has the option to transfer the firearm after 3 business days unless the transfer has been denied by NICS. I would contend that 3 business days is not instant and a month is anything but instant, particularly as technologies continue to advance. These laws have real-world consequences, and consequences can be deadly. Carol Bowne was a New Jersey resident with a restraining order against her ex-boyfriend. Her application for a firearm took longer than 40 days to process, and he stabbed her to death while she was waiting to legally protect herself. Let that sink in. This bill would empower abusers and violent predators by making their victims more vulnerable. Madam Chair, we oppose this legislation. It doesn't make sense in its current form. It will do nothing to make our communities safer, but it will make it harder for law-abiding citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights and to defend themselves and their families. Madam Chair, I am not often going to be able to say this, but I am joined today by the ACLU, who is opposing this bill and scoring against this bill. It is not ready for prime time. It is ready to go back to actually have hearings and actually do markups and actually work with this bill. I appreciate the gentleman, especially, from South Carolina's intent. No one fights stronger for his constituency than the gentleman from South Carolina. This is just not the right piece of legislation at the right time for the reasons that I spoke of, that have nothing to do with the intent. It has everything to do with words on paper. Remember, Madam Chair, that is what we vote on, not aspirational ideas. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Chair, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. David P. Roe).

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Chair, I am actually glad, and one thing I will agree on with my friend just now is I do agree that there is a right to life, and that is why I would love to see this House bring forth the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which also protects life as well. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, again, I am not opposing this amendment, but like the previous amendment, again, it is proof that this bill is still not ready for prime time and should have spent more time instead of moving a very ill-timed previous question because of a timing deadline that they had to get to the floor. It fixes one of the many flaws in the bill. Again, Republicans had solutions to these loose ends all over the bill, but our debate time was stopped. But I do have just a question here. Although I am not opposing this amendment, it merely adds the exchange between stepparent and their stepchildren. What about stepsiblings who also love each other dearly? But this doesn't include that. Stepgrandparents and stepgrandchildren? What about foster families or adoptive families? It is a simple fix that, again, goes forward and, again, struggles. But I do want to go back and address something, Mr. Chairman, that came up earlier, and it seemed to get an interesting response from my friends across the aisle, my colleague stated that the appropriate fine is $1,000, not $100,000. They cite the U.S. sentencing guidelines for this number, but I do have to remind the chairman that since the Booker decision, of course, the guidelines are only advisory. And we need not look to the advisory guidelines, but look at the statute the bill amends. Remember, we do not vote on aspirations in this Chamber; we vote on words on paper. 18 USC 924(a)(5) contains the penalty for violating part ``(s) or (t) of section 922 shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both.'' 18 USC 3571(b)(5) ``for a Class A misdemeanor'', which this is, ``that does not result in death, not more than $100,000.'' So it could be $1,000 or it could be up to $100,000. I appreciate our confusion over this issue, but unfortunately, as I stated before, this is what happens when a bill is rushed to the floor, and it is why we oppose this legislation. When we understand this, Mr. Chairman, again, you can offer amendments that make Members feel good, but feeling good doesn't heal you and feeling good will not make this better. I will not oppose this amendment, but, again, I think in just the moments that I have had here, I raised enough questions about this amendment to take up those very issues that were spoken of about the love between stepparents and stepchildren. What about the stepsiblings? What about the stepgrandparents? That is still part of that device and not addressed in this. And, again, going back to the issue of the fine: again, the statute and the bill itself are pretty clear; it is fined under this process and not the guidelines that are sentencing. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, again, I appreciate the gentleman bringing it, but as was said, this is an attempt to make a bill that should have been vetted more in committee not be vetted more. And I appreciate that. I am not going to oppose the amendment, but when I take it a step further, what about the stepparents and the stepsiblings between each other, and the stepgrandparents and stepgrandchildren? I have had a wonderful look at those families. Those are precious families. Why are we just stopping at one? Again, it goes back to the heart. And I understand the rush to get here, but, again, what makes you feel better and makes you feel good does not always heal you. This is something that needs to be addressed. Mr. Chair, with this, I am not going to oppose this amendment. It is unfortunately very lacking in a bill that is lacking on many points, but with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the willingness of the amendment, I think, but I rise in that, again, this is something discussed at committee. It was an attempt to--it is basically a failed attempt to fix one of the shortcomings of this legislation. I understand why they would bring it. I understand why they would want to fix it, because its existence indicates what we have been saying about the flaws in the bill, which we discussed at committee. Like other floor amendments that are going to be offered, this is nothing more than trying to basically change the appearance of what is a flawed perception. The problem here is it addresses the undefined term of ``imminent'' used in the bill. Mr. Chairman, it is well known, and I have spoken about it many times, that I am still currently serving as a United States Air Force chaplain. I have pastored for many years, and I have been on the other end of phone calls from those who were struggling and thinking of taking their life. Suicide is not something that we can define very easily. It is not something that we can simply limit to: Yes, guns are effective. But any method that someone uses to choose to end their life is sad and a struggle for those of us who have dealt with this. The term ``imminent'' here is problematic for those of us who have dealt with those who are struggling with suicide because imminent to them and imminent to a judge and imminent to someone who wants to take his life, and to law enforcement, indicates something precipitous that will happen in a very short amount of time, a very imminent act, something that is maybe going to happen, Mr. Chairman, even before I finish my speech. That is an imminent kind of act. Imminent does not extend to 12 hours or 24 hours or even 46 hours. That would not fall under the definition of ``imminent.'' And I am not willing to let a prosecutor or a judge who may not like guns, who would actually say that was an imminent threat, and by transferring it for more than a short amount of time, you have then fallen under and fall under this. Now, I would hope that would never happen, Mr. Chairman. But we have to be serious about this issue of imminence. For those of us who have dealt with this, there may be, and I have had times when people would come to me and they were thinking about harming themselves, but the imminence factor was not there. They were just trying to see if they could clear their head. It may be a week that would pass, and they came back and would say it was fine. But in this issue, I understand the intent and the heart here, but it is a very weak attempt to fix problems that we had already pointed out in this bill. And it will still not fix the problem, because the problem is the imminent standard. That is the part that we are struggling with. We can disagree about this, and I will respect the gentlewoman if she disagrees, and would expect her to. But let's remember, this is carried out, if, say--which I would hope would not happen--this bill actually becomes law. It then will present a problem for those who have to enforce it and those judges who would have to interpret it. We have to remember that our actions here, we vote on words on paper, not aspirational ideas. Those are happy thoughts, not words on paper. The only thing that the courts can do is vote on words on paper. I appreciate the gentlewoman bringing this. I support the intent, especially dealing with suicide, which many of us have worked on, and the tragedy that it leaves in the wake of so many. But please understand my opposition to this is it is still a flawed product because we have not dealt with the very issue of imminence in this legislation and this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I won't take even the 30 seconds. I just support the amendment. I think it is good. Many of the flaws that we have seen in this bill so far, this is an amendment that actually works.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close as well. Mr. Chair, before I close, I would like to say that I agree with the statement from the gentleman just now that there are maybe the ones turned away every day. The problem is there are only 60 a year prosecuted for what is a crime. This doesn't address that. Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Budd), a licensed firearms dealer.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, again, I understand the need or want to do this is to make many things that actually came in discussions in our committee about some of the problems that we found here, and the mere submission is another tacit admission that the Democrats understand the flaws in this bill. Mr. Chairman, it is not something that I am going to relitigate here, but also, when debate is cut short, this is what happens when you get to the floor. When debate is cut short in committee, this is what happens. They realize that good products were brought up, but yet they chose to push through a bill because they had a timeline. We went through this in the Rules Committee. I get it. This is what is coming up. But, again, to put this in, ``great bodily harm,'' it is minimally helpful at this point. It goes back to the problem we had with ``imminent'' in the last one. These are all things, frankly, that could have been--even in a bill that I would disagree with at the end of the day on this--this is, again, not something that is going to fix it. A victim of domestic abuse can live in constant fear of her abuser and feel threatened at all times. Again, Mr. Chairman, I understand at least the attempt to fix something, because they understand that there were problems and they don't want to make it worse, but I have advocated all along that what this does help, it also hurts. And this is, again, just another attempt to do that. I appreciate that they are figuring out the problems now; I just would oppose this amendment, because, again, it does not completely fix the problems that we have seen, and would not in the bigger picture. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I am.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from Louisiana an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I request of the chairman: Does he have any more speakers at this time?

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Announcement by the Chair

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.