Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that today we are considering H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019. We have promised the American people that Congress would take steps to reduce gun violence, and this bill is a critical first step toward doing so. During the past 4 weeks, as the Judiciary Committee, and now the full House, have discussed the issue of gun violence, I have cited grim statistics. Nearly 40,000 Americans lost their lives because of guns in 2017. In fact, every day in America, on average, 34 people are murdered with a firearm, and more than 183 people are injured in an attack. Gun violence of this magnitude is a distinctly American problem. A country-to-country comparison is shocking. For example, in 2011, the United Kingdom had 146 deaths due to gun violence; Denmark, 71; Portugal, 142; and Japan, just 30. The United States, that year, about 35,000. A recent study in the American Journal of Medicine found that, compared to 22 other high-income countries, the gun-related murder rate in the United States is 25 times higher. Even when you adjust for population differences, Americans are disproportionately killed by gun violence. Almost 25 years to the day after the Brady Act was first implemented, expanding our current background check requirement to cover virtually all gun transfers is one of the steps we must take to address this crisis. Under current law, only licensed firearms dealers are required to conduct a background check before transferring a gun to another person. This means that gun shows, online sales, and other private sales can completely evade this vital tool for ensuring that guns do not get into the wrong hands. It is time to close this dangerous loophole. This bill would make it illegal for any person who is not a licensed firearm importer, manufacturer, or dealer to transfer a firearm to any other person who is not so licensed without a background check. Individuals seeking to transfer a firearm under this measure would be required to visit a licensed firearms dealer to run the necessary background check before the transfer could be finalized. The bill also provides a number of exceptions to this requirement, including gifts to family members and transfers for hunting, target shooting, and instances of imminent death or great bodily harm. The FBI's internal assessment demonstrated that checks processed through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, often called NICS, are approximately 99.3 percent to 99.8 percent accurate, and in 90 percent of cases, the background checks are completed within 90 seconds. H.R. 8 will provide an accurate and speedy mechanism to help ensure firearms do not end up in the wrong hands. There is no reason to continue to make it easy for people who are legally prohibited from possessing firearms to acquire them by circumventing the background check process. H.R. 8 would close this dangerous loophole and save many, many lives. That is why I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this vital legislation today. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), a member of the committee.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Brown).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the House on the motion to recommit, I report the bill, H.R. 8, back to the House with an amendment.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, let us not accept this red herring. Let us not divert. Vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit and ``yes'' on the bill. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, let's remember what we are dealing with. We are dealing with the fact that current Federal law with respect to firearms background checks is dangerously limited and flawed because background checks are only required for sales by licensed gun dealers and that many, many people get a gun at a gun show or from someone else. Something like 20 percent, I think the figure is, or 25 percent of gun sales escape background checks. So all kinds of people who may be criminals, who may be mentally ill, and who may be domestic abusers who shouldn't have guns get guns, and that results in lives forfeited. It results in people killed. This bill goes a long way toward solving that by saying we are going to require background checks of everyone who gets a gun, with some exceptions, with some reasonable exceptions which are in the bill. Now, along comes this motion to recommit, which is a total red herring having nothing to do with the purpose of the bill, and says that, if someone fails a background check because he is illegally in this country, you should report that to ICE. First of all, if he fails a background check because he is illegally in the country, that means the system knows he is illegally in the country. It means they already know that. So what is the point of reporting him? He has to be in the system as illegally in the country in order to fail the background check because of section (g)(5). So we already know that, and this is totally circular, number one. Number two, this is just a red herring to try to mix up the immigration issue with the gun violence issue, and they really have nothing to do with each other. Number three, for 8 years, we couldn't get a hearing--not a hearing in a committee--on this bill or on any real bill to stop the plague of handgun violence in this country. Madam Speaker, 150 people killed in Great Britain, 95 in Austria or wherever, 39,000 in the United States--no one will tell me that Americans are 10,000 times as mentally ill as Europeans or Japanese. The problem is we don't have adequate protections on guns. This bill goes in the direction of doing it, and they want to sabotage the bill with a phony issue raised by this MTR. Now, there is an issue. If people fail the background check for various reasons, then you can make a case it should be reported to local law enforcement agencies. Mr. Cicilline has a bill to do just that. I am going to yield to him in a second. But the fact is it has nothing to do with this bill. It is just an attempt to sabotage this bill. If you believe that we ought to cut down on the plague of gun violence in this country, that we ought to save lives, that we ought to get rid of all these people who shouldn't have guns having guns, and that we ought to have background checks in sensible situations, then vote against the motion to recommit and for the bill. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Chair, I simply want to say I support this amendment, which clarifies that great bodily harm is included in the exception to the bill's background check requirement, includes domestic violence, sexual assaults, stalking, et cetera. It is a good amendment. I urge people to support it.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment, which clarifies the bill's exemption for the background check requirement in instances of imminent threats or great bodily harm would apply to someone who is at risk of committing suicide. The amendment makes clear that the limited number of exemptions to the background check requirement include circumstances in which someone feels that they are a danger to themselves. They may temporarily transfer a firearm until the danger has passed. This is a limited and reasonable exemption that only applies to those who fear they will harm themselves, so that they may temporary surrender their weapon. I listened to the gentleman from Georgia, and I appreciate he doesn't think that the amendment goes far enough or solves the underlying problems of the bill, as he sees it. But even from his point of view, it should go in the right direction. So I urge everyone to support this amendment.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment because it is fatally flawed and would undermine the public safety impact of the bill. The amendment would add an exception to the background check requirement for anyone who is a participant in the TSA PreCheck program by the Department of Homeland Security. By exempting those who have obtained a TSA PreCheck from the background check requirement, the amendment would allow many dangerous people, including people with disqualifying mental health conditions and some criminal convictions, to obtain firearms without a background check. The current background system, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, was designed specifically for background checks pursuant to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. The system, often called the NICS, contains the information that no other Federal database contains, and the TSA does not check NICS when determining a person's eligibility for the TSA PreCheck program. Although participants in the TSA PreCheck program have had their criminal backgrounds vetted, the standards for approval and participation in the TSA PreCheck program are not the same and, in many cases, are more lenient than those which prohibit firearm possession and purchase. For example, the NICS searches the records of people prohibited for mental health reasons during a firearms background check. These mental health reasons, though, are not part of the TSA PreCheck search. As of January 31, there are more than 5.7 million of these mental health records in the NICS indexes, making it the second most populous category of prohibited records for firearm purchase. Because the Department of Homeland Security does not have access to these mental health records for TSA PreCheck program purposes, individuals who have been adjudicated to be disqualified to own firearms for reasons of mental condition or have been committed to any mental institution may be accepted under the TSA PreCheck program but are not legally able to possess a gun. Under this amendment, they would be legally exempted from the background check requirement and would be able to get a gun, despite being legally prohibited from doing so. The TSA bars people convicted of certain criminal offenses, such as rape or aggravated sexual abuse, from participating in the TSA PreCheck program only temporarily. It doesn't restrict people convicted of these serious crimes for more than 7 years, and it wouldn't bar people released from prison for these crimes within the last 5 years. Under current law, these felony convictions prohibit possession or purchase of a weapon, but, under this amendment, people released from prison within the last 5 years for these crimes could get the weapons-- could get the weapons. The TSA PreCheck program does not have a minimum age requirement, and this amendment would allow people under the ages of 18 and 21 to purchase firearms illegally and without a NICS background check. Furthermore, the TSA PreCheck program only requires a background check every 5 years, and the PreCheck system may not be advised that a firearms disqualifying offense has taken place after the initial PreCheck background check has occurred. In other words, you get the TSA PreCheck, and if you are convicted afterwards, within 5 years, for a very serious crime, under this amendment, you could get the gun, although, legally, you shouldn't without a background check, and the TSA PreCheck program would not have picked it up. These shortcomings of the TSA PreCheck system make it an inadequate and dangerous substitute for a NICS background check. To prevent potentially prohibited purchasers from obtaining firearms, licensed dealers should conduct background checks on participants in the PreCheck program as they would with any other member of the public. The blanket exception of this amendment for anyone who participates in the TSA PreCheck program would undermine the bill's ability to enhance public safety because it would enable people convicted of serious crimes, people adjudicated to have serious mental illnesses, to purchase guns without a background check, even though the TSA system would not pick them up. The TSA system is not a substitute for the background check system. It doesn't pick up many of the crimes. It doesn't carry it forward. And it is not a substitute for this system. To pass this amendment, which would allow people who have qualified under the TSA PreCheck program not to have background checks, would allow a lot of people who shouldn't have guns to have them. Therefore, I strongly oppose this amendment, and I ask that my colleagues vote ``no'' on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chair, we have heard the other side here say that some people lie on the forms; they are not prosecuted. Well, that may be, and maybe law enforcement ought to prosecute more people. That doesn't negate the necessity for the bill. It doesn't negate the fact that too many people who shouldn't have guns, who are mentally unstable, who have committed crimes, and who are abusers get guns because they buy a gun at a gun show or not from a registered gun dealer and, therefore, do not have to undergo a background check. Everyone who gets a gun should have to undergo a background check, with the few exceptions we put in the bill. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 8 is legislation that is long overdue for passage by this body and for enactment so that we can take a critical step overwhelmingly supported by the American people to protect us from gun violence. We have had too many moments of silence, too many expressions of sympathy, too many deaths--39,000 deaths from guns last year--but little action here in Congress on this issue. Today we act. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this vital bill to start taking back our streets from the killers, to start blocking people who shouldn't have them from having guns. Save our lives. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), who is the distinguished author of the bill.

Mr. NADLER. Yes, I have one more.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out the penalty in this bill that is being cited as $100,000 is in fact $1,000. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who is the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, President Trump's declaration of a national emergency, as an excuse to build a wall that Congress explicitly rejected, is an abuse of his constitutional oath, and cannot be tolerated by a coequal branch of government under the Constitution. We must reject this unlawful power grab and reassert Congress' authority to exercise the power of the purse. The Constitution could not be clearer: ``No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.'' That command reflects a fundamental principle that is older than our democracy itself: The chief executive cannot unilaterally spend taxpayers' money or redirect a budget set by the people's representatives. Earlier this year, Congress reached a bipartisan compromise to fund the government, and it was signed by the President. Congress allocated limited funding for fencing in certain areas, but squarely rejected the President's request to build a medieval barrier across the southern border. Almost immediately, the President decided to rewrite the budget set by Congress, and he told us exactly why. He was not satisfied with what he got from the process that the Constitution dictates, so he did an end run and made it an emergency. He and his aides have barely even tried to pretend that the so-called emergency is a real one. They know that illegal immigration is at historically low levels. They know that children and families fleeing violence are coming here to make lawful asylum claims, not as some kind of invading army. They know that illegal drugs overwhelmingly get smuggled through ports of entry, and that a wall would do nothing to change that. But they refuse to let the facts and the law stand in the way of their political agenda. Even worse, the emergency law that President Trump invoked allows the military to redirect funds only if an emergency ``requires the use of the armed forces.'' And those funds can be used only for construction projects that are ``necessary to support such use of the armed forces.'' But a wall cannot possibly be ``necessary to support'' a military operation on the border because our laws prohibit the military from engaging in law enforcement activities. The military cannot enforce an immigration law, so the President's actions are doubly unlawful. There is no real emergency; and even if there were, the President could not redirect military funds for a purpose expressly prohibited to the military. Fortunately, the Constitution does not get suspended based on President Trump's preferences about what is convenient or ``faster.'' Our Nation's Founders left it up to all of us, including those of us in Congress, to act as guardians against exactly this type of assault on our constitutional order. In that spirit, I proudly support this joint resolution, and I call upon my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand up and do the same.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained on February 7, 2019, and, as a result, I missed four votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on roll call vote no. 68, ordering the previous question providing for consideration of H.R. 840, the ``Veterans Access to Child Care Act;'' ``aye'' on roll call vote no. 69, on agreeing to H. Res. 105, the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 840 and adopting H. Res. 86, providing for the expenses of the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis and Modernization of Congress; ``aye'' on roll call vote no. 70, final passage of H.R. 450, the ``Preventing Crimes Against Veterans Act;'' and ``aye'' on roll call vote no. 71, final passage of H.R. 507, ``Put Trafficking Victims First Act.''

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Krishnamoorthi) to close the debate on our side.