Debbie Lesko

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire on the time remaining?

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from West Virginia.

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Miller), my good friend.

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), my good friend.

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend from Texas, Representative Burgess, for yielding me time on this most important issue. First, I would like to talk about the underlying bill. Equal work does deserve equal pay, regardless of the sex of the employee. In America, this is already the law of the land, and it has been since 1963 when Congress passed the Equal Pay Act. However, we stand here today debating a rule for a partisan Democrat bill that offers no protections against pay discrimination in the workplace. Instead, the bill makes it easier for trial lawyers to score unlimited paydays while dragging working women through never-ending legal dramas. This bill also prevents women from utilizing their expertise, skills, talents, and education to their advantage. It effectively ties employers' hands from considering factors that would allow them to potentially give employees better working environments or for employees to negotiate a higher salary. According to Camille Olson, who testified as a witness in the House Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Human Services and on the House Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, there can indeed be unintended negative consequences from this bill. Let me read an example from her written testimony. This is her statement, and she gave an example. It basically says: In this example an employer has chosen to pay a higher salary to a female law firm office administrator who has a J.D. degree. The job duties for that position do not include legal work. Nevertheless, in the employer's judgment, the performance of those job duties will be enhanced by the additional qualifications of a J.D., justifying the higher salary. In this example, the male employee had a lesser degree. So in this example--because in this bill it requires business necessity--the male could sue. Even though he doesn't have as high a degree as the woman, he could say: I want equal pay. So, what I am trying to say is because of the wording of this bill, I believe--and the witness in the committees believes--there are unintended consequences that could actually hurt women. The employee may have a claim even if the advanced degree does actually improve performance or serve another legitimate business goal where it was not absolutely required for the job, because of the business necessity requirement in the bill. This example may not be the exception. As our economy and culture shifts, we are finding ourselves in a world where women are attending and graduating college far more often than men. According to the U.S. Department of Education data, nearly 60 percent of those who graduated with a bachelor's degree were women. So, certainly, we do not want the unintended consequences of an employer not being able to consider the advanced education of a woman under this business necessity language in the bill. H.R. 7 is more of the same from the new majority: government knows best. It will tie the hands of employers and prevent employees-- especially female employees--from negotiating a salary and working environment that works for them and their family. It is already against the law to discriminate, and commonsense approaches to amending the law were summarily rejected by my colleagues from the other side of the aisle. Madam Speaker, if the previous question is defeated, we would amend this rule to include a simple change. It provides working parents more flexibility so that they can go to baseball games and science fairs; in other words, to be better parents. I would like to read a portion of that amendment: Notwithstanding the other provisions of the subsection, an employee and an employer may voluntarily negotiate compensation and benefits to provide flexibility to best meet the needs of such employee and employer consistent with other provisions of this act.

Mrs. LESKO. We all know that the greatest benefit working parents with young children want and value is flexibility. Our concern is that this radical proposal which is called paycheck fairness would actually limit the flexibility employers can give to working parents, so parents can go to their activities. This amendment is a very simple amendment. It simply restates the law and makes it clear that if you run a dry cleaner with five people in it, you don't have to hire a lawyer to define a job for an employee with a child in such a way that the employee can go to the science fair or a baseball game. Instead of being about more litigation and trial lawyers, it is about giving more flexibility for working parents. Working Americans should have the freedom to choose what is best for them and their families, not the Federal Government. Hardworking men and women need more flexibility to balance work, life, and family. This amendment seeks to provide additional relief in this area. Madam Speaker, I urge ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the underlying measure.

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, Mr. Cole, the ranking member of the Rules Committee, for yielding me time to speak on this most important issue. Mr. Speaker, I tell those of you who are here today and throughout America, this is a terrible bill. I have to tell you, the more that I read about it, the more that I study about it, the worse I think that it is. First of all, it is a total overreach of the Federal Government into States' rights. In this bill, the majority didn't even consult with the secretaries of States and the election officials throughout the entire country to see if they even liked it. And so you are mandating to the States how they should run their elections. Not only that, it is mandating to the States how they should run redistricting. Now, in the State of Arizona, the voters of Arizona set up a redistricting commission and determined how it should be run. But in this bill it says, no, no, it shouldn't be up to the State. It shouldn't be up to the voters. We know better here in Washington, D.C. how to do your business.

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, the worst part is that it subsidizes politicians with public money, a 6-to-1 matching ratio giving millions, billions more dollars to candidates. My constituents don't want to see any more of those TV commercials at all; no more signs; no more robocalls. This bill would add more money to those nasty things.

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mrs. LESKO. 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 Democratic colleagues are set to pass this bill 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 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, and that is why this motion to recommit is so personally important to me. This 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 3 days, which is the status quo, if NICS has not responded with a denial or approval in 3 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. I know you are purchasing a firearm to protect yourself, but you have to wait 20 business days? Should we tell them: Hopefully you can hide from your abuser for the next month? The Judiciary Committee 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 and how this law-abiding young woman was harmed by gun control laws. Another specific example related to this bill of a well-intentioned law gone wrong is Carol Bowne, 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 Bowne had an order of protection. She attempted to purchase a firearm, and she 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? And 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 that domestic violence victims, many of whom live in fear, can receive the protection they need and deserve. Vote for this motion to recommit and you vote to protect domestic violence victims. Vote against the motion to recommit and you are telling victims who live in fear: Sorry; we won't help you. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this motion to recommit, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. LESKO. I am.

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would allow gun owners to legally transfer their firearms to individuals who have been approved and are participants in TSA's PreCheck program. TSA PreCheck identifies trusted travelers and, thus, allows expedited movement through airport security. In order to receive TSA PreCheck, one must submit an application, have an in-person interview, and go through a background check and fingerprinting. Fingerprinting is not required, currently, to purchase a gun; thus, a TSA PreCheck background check is more stringent. If an individual can pass this background check and be admitted to this Federal Government program, there is no reason why they shouldn't be able to borrow a firearm from a friend. They have already gone through a more extensive background check system than to acquire a weapon. The current background check does not require fingerprints; a TSA PreCheck does. Membership to TSA PreCheck must be renewed every 5 years. Again, the TSA PreCheck process requires fingerprints and an in-person interview. The process, currently, for purchasing a gun requires neither of those under Federal law. It appears, then, that the TSA PreCheck process is a more extensive process. H.R. 8 restricts not only the purchase, but also the everyday gun transfer for law-abiding citizens. This amendment and many other Republican amendments--I think I had five others that were not made in order--seek to give some relief to law-abiding citizens from this overarching and burdensome legislation. In H.R. 8, we are not only talking about the purchase of firearms, we are talking about the transfer of firearms, which includes lending your firearm. The Democrats have proposed a bill that would criminalize millions of law-abiding Americans. Because this bill uses ambiguous, overarching, and vague language, it encompasses so many potential situations. This amendment seeks to give some relief. If we are going to allow Americans to be given expedited and reduced screening in our most sensitive and secure environments in the U.S. airport getting on a plane, why wouldn't we allow them to lend a gun to their friend? H.R. 8 criminalizes me and others just for handing someone a firearm who isn't a direct family member or in other very narrow situations. In fact, as I said yesterday, the language in this bill is so ambiguous. What is ``imminent danger''? There is no definition in the bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Nadler, in his statement, said that my amendment would allow dangerous people to get guns. I have to say I disagree. I am the ranking member on the Committee on Homeland Security subcommittee that deals with TSA, and the TSA PreCheck system is more stringent than the background check currently required to obtain a gun, when you purchase it. Again, it requires a fingerprint background check and an individual interview. Neither of those are required right now. We had offered a number of amendments to help this bill become less burdensome on law-abiding citizens, and so I am happy that one was at least ruled in order, this TSA one, and I would ask my colleagues to please vote ``yes'' on it. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this commonsense amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, in closing, we all want to solve gun violence in the United States, but H.R. 8 and H.R. 1112 will not solve the problem. As co-chairwoman of the bipartisan Women's Caucus, I am committed to working across the aisle on solutions we can all agree on. However, this is not one of them. We can talk about mental health. We can talk about strengthening the NICS background check system even more. We can talk about enforcing the laws that are already on the books. H.R. 8 will turn law-abiding citizens into criminals by making everyday gun transfers a crime and putting those who seek to protect themselves in jail for wanting to do so. H.R. 8 and H.R. 1112 will place an undue burden on citizens who already have a background check. For instance: security clearance, global entry, State-issued permits, et cetera. These pieces of legislation put law-abiding citizens in danger by disarming them and emboldening criminals. The bad guys never follow the law. In fact, I believe that this legislation violates the Second Amendment of the Constitution because it does not prohibit undue fees for background checks and, thus, some people cannot afford them and, thus, not be able to get a gun to defend themselves. Mr. Speaker, I urge ``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' on the underlying measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to make my amendment in order, which would allow domestic violence and sexual assault victims with orders of protection to be exempt from the gun transfer prohibitions. This amendment is crucial to saving lives. As a survivor of domestic violence, I know what it is like to be in fear for our lives. This commonsense amendment is clearcut. If you are a victim with an order of protection, you can borrow a firearm or transfer a firearm to you. It is important, because victims don't often have the means to purchase or go pay for a background check. The Democrats have presented a letter from the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence as a reason for not needing my amendment. However, with all due respect, the National Task Force does not speak for every victim, and they certainly do not speak for me. In fact, they never even contacted me, and I have been an outspoken person saying I am a survivor of domestic violence since I ran for Congress. I am also the person who sponsored the amendment to extend the Violence Against Women Act, yet they have never talked to me or reached out to my office. The majority offered a political amendment on domestic violence, which I have already talked about, which really does not do any good, because the definitions of imminent danger are not defined, and it will not be carried out and will not be effective. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to refute some of the things, or talk about some of the things said by my friends on the other side. One of the things that I do want to talk about is that Mr. Raskin said that my amendment is such a narrow exception for domestic violence victims. I had a broader one in Judiciary Committee, if the gentleman remembers, and Chairman Nadler told me that it was too broad, that it was too vague, so that is why I made it very specific. If the gentleman would like, I will make it broad again. Also in the Rules Committee, there was another amendment as well, and we are both on Rules, too, of course. There was a broader one from Mr. Scalise, who is a victim of gun violence. He had an amendment that was ruled out of order. That basically said any victim of domestic violence, which was broad, but then he had another subsection that said victim of domestic violence or sexual abuse that has an order of protection. So we covered both, yet it was ruled out of order. So we really tried. Now, the other thing that you brought up, that it is very clear what imminent danger means, and that would cover somebody, and surely a domestic violence victim would not become a criminal under this law. Well, I don't think it is very sure. So I ask Mr. Raskin, my colleague, if he would be open to removing the word ``imminent'' and just say ``danger,'' instead of ``imminent danger,'' because to me, ``imminent danger'' means you have to be right in the same room, you know, and throw somebody a gun or something. I mean, to me, the word ``imminent'' needs to be removed from the language. The other thing I would like to talk about is the number of times now my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said: Oh, so many people support this universal background check. Well, I disagree. I disagree, because there is proof right in Maine. They had a ballot measure, and it was rejected by the majority of the people. I suppose it depends on how you ask the question, but I just don't think that when you get into the details of how it takes away our fundamental Second Amendment rights and actually burdens law-abiding citizens and actually may harm people, some of these laws--like was the case with the young woman who testified in Judiciary who said that good-intentioned gun laws actually prevented her from defending herself, and she was raped. So I would say I have some disagreements with some of your statements. I also want to point out that there are many things that we can do on a bipartisan basis, and this obviously is not bipartisan. I am a co- chairwoman of the Women's Caucus in Congress, and I have talked to my counterpart, a very nice woman and Congresswoman. We really do want to work on bipartisan solutions to gun violence. I would say one of those is let's really concentrate on mental health issues. Now, we have done some things in the past. We did the Fix NICS Act, which we passed last year on a bipartisan basis, which really is an attempt to fix the national background system so that local jurisdictions actually report when there are problems, which I think is very valuable. We also did legislation in a bipartisan manner that would protect our schools more. Here is another thing we could do in a bipartisan manner. As you have noted, 3.5 million people have been stopped by NICS since 1994 from getting guns, and 112,000 were stopped just last year. But you know what? Only 12 of those 112,000 were actually prosecuted. Why? I mean, we have laws on the books now, and we are not even enforcing them. So I think that is another thing we can do on a bipartisan basis. Again, this bill, I believe, does more harm than good. I do think my colleagues are well intentioned. I do believe that all of us, whether we are Republican or Democrat, want to reduce gun violence. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson), my good friend.

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a couple of things that were said previously. I had sponsored an amendment, as a survivor of domestic violence, to allow victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse who have orders of protection to be able to get transferred a gun if they might be in fear for their life. As I have said, often victims of domestic violence don't have the financial means or they are so restricted by their perpetrator that it is difficult for them to go out and purchase a gun, let alone get a background check, and so they might have a friend whom they can borrow it from. Now, in response, I think, Mr. Raskin, if I am not mistaken, said that the Democrats did help domestic violence victims. I just don't think that their amendment cuts it, and I am going to read the amendment if this is the one that the gentleman is talking about. It says: A temporary transfer that is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm, if the possession by the transferee lasts only as long as immediately necessary to prevent the imminent death or great bodily harm--and then here is the amendment-- including the harm of domestic violence, dating partner violence, sexual assault, stalking, and domestic abuse. I would say just because you add the words ``domestic violence,'' ``victims of domestic abuse'' doesn't mean this is going to help; and the reason is simply because of what I said before, that these terms in here are really unclear. I really would like somebody to explain, and they are not defined anywhere, who determines prevent imminent death or great bodily harm? So, let's say I am a victim of domestic violence and I think my perpetrator is going to kill me. Does imminent death and, in this word, say, last only as long as immediately necessary to prevent the imminent death? So does that mean the person who--my friend who can lend me a gun has to be right there in the same room and see that there is imminent death coming? I mean, there is no definition here. So it is unclear to me that this would help at all. Also, what is the definition of ``temporary transfer''? How long is that? How long is temporary transfer? Does that mean, you know, just enough time you can throw somebody a gun while they are imminently in death? I mean, do you have to be right there? What does this mean? There is no definition. So, if we are going to proceed with this, I think that we should at least define what these terms mean. Therefore, I really wish that my amendment that said that victims of domestic violence or sexual abuse that have an order of protection through the court--through the court-- would be allowed to at least borrow a gun to defend themselves from, maybe, a friend. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank Mr. Raskin for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, all of us, Republicans and Democrats, want to reduce gun violence. I think there is just a difference of opinion on how we get there. Unfortunately, H.R. 8 and H.R. 1112, although well-intentioned, will not reduce gun violence as Mr. Raskin said, and instead it will turn everyday, law-abiding individuals into criminals and could actually do more harm than good. I grew up in a family that didn't have guns. After my dad returned from World War II, he stopped hunting. So, because I wasn't around them, I have to admit I had an irrational fear of guns for awhile. It wasn't until I became an adult that I got educated. I remember I first went to a debate where the person who was talking for gun rights said: Do you know who follows the laws? Law-abiding people follow the laws. Who doesn't follow the laws? Criminals do not follow the laws. So although well-intentioned, often laws are unenforceable, and criminals just do not follow them. H.R. 8, again, I believe is well-intentioned. But it will not solve the problem. H.R. 8 would not have prevented any of the mass shootings in the last 20 years, not one of them. I studied them because I am on the Judiciary Committee along with Mr. Raskin, and we heard this bill in that committee. In most cases, guns were obtained legally. Recent attackers have passed background checks to acquire their firearms, including the attackers at the Thousand Oaks, California, shooting; the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania shooting; the attacker in the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, Parkland, Florida, shooting; the shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida; and the Las Vegas, Nevada, shooting. None of these attacks would have been prevented if H.R. 8 or H.R. 1112 were law. Then, the attackers in the Columbine High School Colorado shooting used straw purchasers for their weapons, an act that is already illegal and has been illegal since at least the 1960s. Adam Lanza, the attacker in the Sandy Hook Elementary School, Newtown, Connecticut, shooting used his mother's firearms which were legally purchased by his mother. So as you can see--and I have each one of them listed how the attackers got their guns--H.R. 8 and H.R. 1112 would not have prevented any of these shootings. Not only would none of the mass shootings be prevented by H.R. 8 and H.R. 1112, but the Department of Justice under President Obama said that in order for universal background checks to actually work and be enforceable, a Federal gun registry is needed. Yet this legislation in H.R. 8 specifically prohibits a registry; thus, again, it is unenforceable. The fact is criminals don't get their guns legally and will not go through a background check to get their guns even if this bill were signed into law. A recent Department of Justice report of prison inmates that used guns in their crimes showed that 56 percent obtained their guns illegally and another 25 percent received them from family members-- which, by the way, family members are still allowed to get the guns under this law. It is obvious, then, that they did not get their guns from a gun show or private sales, as Mr. Raskin is concerned about. H.R. 8 will also turn everyday, law-abiding citizens into criminals if it becomes law. Let's look at the amendments that were rejected by the Democrats in the Rules Committee and in the Committee on the Judiciary that offered to protect law-abiding citizens from becoming criminals. First, there was an amendment--I thought commonsense--that someone thinking of committing suicide would be exempted from temporarily turning over their gun to a friend, and it is not allowed under this bill. They would become a criminal. So, somebody who wants to commit suicide could not transfer their gun to someone else. If a law-abiding citizen wanted to let someone temporarily use their gun on their own property, they would become a criminal under this bill. If a farmer or rancher wanted to temporarily lend a gun to a ranch hand for the purposes of ranch activities, the farmer would become a criminal under this law. If a domestic violence victim was in fear for her life and wanted to temporarily borrow a gun from a friend to protect herself, she would become a criminal under this law. Let's also look at some commonsense amendments rejected by the Democrats that would have prevented undue burdens and duplication on law-abiding citizens who have already passed a background check but now have to go through another background check under this law. People who have security clearances. This is the application to get a government security clearance, page upon page, background check, extensive background check. Yet, someone who has this and has gone through this still has to get another background check. People who have a concealed carry weapon issued by a State, they have to go through another background check. People who have already gotten a gun permit from States which require them; they have to go through another background check. People who have global entry, who have gone through a background check, they have got to do it again under this bill. Even law enforcement officers. Law enforcement officers have to go through another background check under this bill. This is placing undue burden on law-abiding citizens. Now I want to share testimony from a young woman from the Judiciary Committee. This woman was a victim of rape on her college campus. And the reason I am bringing it up is because well-meaning gun control laws actually prevented her from carrying a gun to school because the State she traveled through 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, law-abiding citizens--who follow the law and how this young woman and others like her were actually harmed by well-intentioned gun control laws. As a survivor of domestic violence, I know all too well how hard it can be to protect oneself or find a lifeline out. My abuser often controlled all my finances. I wouldn't have been able to pay for a background check or a gun. Sometimes getting a gun from a friend could actually be your only option; yet, unfortunately, under this bill, I tried to offer an amendment, but it was rejected. Now let's turn to H.R. 1112, which changes the length of time that a background check has to be completed from the current 3 days to 10 business days and then another 10 business days for an appeal. So it could be 20-plus days. The reason I am bringing this up is I want to tell you a story--a real story--about Carol Bowne. She was a New Jersey woman who was stabbed to death while waiting to be approved for her firearm application. She already had an order of protection through the courts, but that wasn't enough. She needed more than just that piece of paper. 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--20 days to a month--like Carol. How many women will potentially suffer like Carol? H.R. 8 also has other problems. Unfortunately, the debate in the Judiciary Committee was cut short. Many commonsense amendments were not even heard. Only 10 amendments out of 100 were heard before the chairman cut off debate. Because of the rush to get this bill through, there is another problem. There is vague language that is not defined and, thus, is open to interpretation. I know, in some of the amendments, the majority party has tried to give an alternative to my good, commonsense domestic violence amendments, but it doesn't do any good. And this is the reason; it is because the language is so vague. It says: Under H.R. 8, a person is allowed to temporarily transfer a firearm if it is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. The question is: There is no definition of this, so how long is a temporary transfer? Who determines that? Does the victim determine it? Who determines if there is imminent death? Does it qualify if a victim of domestic violence thinks they will be killed? Or does the person transferring the gun have to be in the same room and there be some kind of shootout and they throw a gun to them? What do ``imminent danger'' and ``imminent death'' mean? With something as important as the Second Amendment, I think we owe it to the American people to do our work and take as long as we have to in order to have a fair and open debate on major pieces of legislation. Mr. Speaker, with that, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.