Mike Thompson

Mr. THOMPSON of California

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I have a point of parliamentary procedure.

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 1217, the bipartisan expanded background checks legislation, to honor the memory of Chris Rhoden, Jr., a victim of gun violence who never received a moment of silence on the House floor.

Mr. THOMPSON of California

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. THOMPSON of California. I am, in its current form.

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill. It will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended. My motion to recommit would incorporate into the underlying legislation H.R. 1076, a bipartisan measure of no fly, no buy, and H.R. 1217, another bipartisan bill to strengthen our background check system for gun sales. These bills are common sense. They are bipartisan. They respect the Second Amendment. I am a gun owner. If these bills did anything to violate those rights, my name wouldn't be on them. Most importantly, they would help keep guns away from those who shouldn't have them: terrorists, criminals, domestic abusers, and the dangerously mentally ill. H.R. 1076 was introduced by our Republican colleague Peter King. This bill says that if you are on the FBI's terrorist no-fly list then you don't get to walk into a gun store, pass a background check, and leave with a gun or guns of your choosing. If there is one thing both sides of the aisle should be able to agree on it is keeping guns from suspected terrorists, and 181 Members of this House have signed the petition to force an up-or-down vote on the bill. Mr. Speaker, give us a vote on this legislation. The second bill, H.R. 1217, is a bipartisan, pro-Second Amendment bill that would close dangerous loopholes in our background check system that allow criminals, domestic abusers, and the dangerously mentally ill to bypass a background check and purchase guns online, at gun shows, or through classified ads. The bill has 186 bipartisan coauthors. Mr. Speaker, give us a vote on this legislation. These are the bills the American people want to see enacted into law as 85 percent of Americans favor banning individuals on the no-fly list from being able to buy a gun, and 90 percent of Americans support strengthening and expanding our background check system. We have been calling for a vote on this bipartisan legislation to reduce gun violence for 3\1/2\ years. It was that long ago that 20 elementary school kids and six educators were shot to death at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. For reasons that I will never understand, that horrific tragedy was not enough to convince the Republican leadership that something needed to be done to prevent the next tragedy. Sadly, in the 3\1/2\ years that the Republicans have refused to vote on legislation to keep guns out of dangerous hands, our country has lost far too many innocent lives to gun violence. Let me give you some numbers: 3\1/2\, the number of years it has been since Sandy Hook; 34,000, the number of people killed by someone with a gun since Sandy Hook; 1,182, the number of mass shootings since Sandy Hook; 30, the number of moments of silence since Sandy Hook; 521, the number of legislative days since Sandy Hook; most importantly, the number zero. That is the number of votes we have taken in this House to keep guns out of dangerous hands. That is shameful. Congress has a responsibility to take action to keep our communities safe from gun violence. With this motion, our Republican colleagues have an opportunity right here, right now, to vote on these bills. We are here to represent and to fight for the people we have the privilege to serve. The overwhelming majority of American people wants to see their elected representatives take action to help keep guns away from those who shouldn't have them: terrorists, criminals, domestic abusers, and the dangerously mentally ill. This debate isn't a choice between respecting the Second Amendment or reducing gun violence. It is about Congress doing both. Mr. Speaker, it is long past time for the Republican leadership to give us a vote on this pro-Second Amendment, pro-gun safety legislation. We can't allow mass gun violence, followed by moments of silence and no action, to become America's new normal. We can't wait for more innocent lives to be cut short by someone who has used a gun. We need to pass this motion and help spare families the pain of losing a loved one to gun violence. Give us a vote. Pass this bill. I yield back the balance of my time. Point of Order

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. THOMPSON of California

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today because the American people have had enough. They have had enough with the epidemic of gun violence in our country. They have had enough with House Republicans' obstruction of bipartisan, pro-Second Amendment legislation to help keep guns away from those who shouldn't have them-- terrorists, criminals, domestic abusers, and the dangerously mentally ill--because whether it is in a movie theater, on a college campus, at an elementary school, in a church, in a nightclub, or on the streets of our cities, we have lost far too many innocent lives to gun violence. Let me give you some numbers: 3\1/2\, that is the number of years since the terrible tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School; 34,000, that is the number of people who have been killed by someone using a gun since Sandy Hook; 1,182, that is the number of mass shootings in our country since Sandy Hook; 30, that is the number of moments of silence observed by this House for victims of gun violence since Sandy Hook; 521, that is the number of days the House has been in session since Sandy Hook; and zero--zero--that is the number of votes that have been taken in this House to keep guns out of dangerous hands in the last 3\1/2\ years. Just a few weeks ago, we experienced the worst mass shooting in our country's history at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando. Forty-nine innocent people lost their lives in that nightclub, 49 people who were someone's son, daughter, someone's brother, sister, someone's significant other, someone's friend, and someone's loved one. After this horrific shooting, the American people don't want to see their elected representatives fall back into the same old pattern of mass shootings followed by moments of silence, thoughts and prayers, but no real action taken to help prevent the next tragedy. The American people want to see Congress pass meaningful legislation to help keep our communities and our loved ones safe. Eighty-five percent of Americans are in favor of banning individuals on the terrorist watch list from being able to legally buy guns. Ninety percent of Americans support strengthening and expanding our background check system. There are two bipartisan, pro-Second Amendment bills that would do just that: The first bill, H.R. 1076, known as the no fly, no buy, was introduced by our Republican colleague Peter King. This bill says that if you are on the FBI's terrorist watch list, then you don't get to walk into a gun store, pass a background check, and leave with the weapon of your choice. If there is one thing both sides of the aisle should be able to agree on, it is keeping guns away from suspected terrorists. Bring that bill up for a vote. The second bill, H.R. 1217--with 186 coauthors, Democrats and Republicans--would close a dangerous loophole in our background check system that allows criminals, domestic abusers, and the dangerously mentally ill to bypass a background check altogether and, instead, purchase their guns online or at a gun show or through a classified ad. This is a huge loophole, and it costs lives. You don't have to look any further than the sister of Elvin Daniel from Wisconsin. His sister Zina had a restraining order against her husband which prevented him from passing a background check when he tried to buy a gun in a store. Nevertheless, Zina's husband was able to go online and buy the same gun, a 40-caliber semiautomatic handgun, and he took that gun and used it to kill Zina and two other people in a store in Wisconsin. This bill would close these kinds of loopholes and help stop criminals from getting guns. Everyone says they want to keep guns away from dangerous people, but the only way to know if someone is dangerous is to conduct a background check. Background checks are our first line of defense against criminals, domestic abusers, and the dangerously mentally ill in getting guns. Last year, 260 Members of this House--including 76 of my Republican colleagues--voted to fund the background check system at record levels. Let me tell you, if you are willing to fund the system at historic levels, you should have no problem using the system. Bring this bill up for a vote. Both of these bills are not only bipartisan, they respect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. I am a gun owner. I own guns. I support the Second Amendment. If these bills did anything to violate those rights, my name wouldn't be on them. As a responsible gun owner, I understand that if gun violence continues unabated, then eventually we will see laws that place overly burdensome restrictions on our right to own guns. Bring these bills up for a vote.

Mr. THOMPSON of California

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker and Members, earlier this morning, hundreds of survivors of gun violence and victims of gun violence gathered out in front. Catherine Bodine from Ohio told us a story about how she was wounded and her daughter Samantha was murdered. That murderer couldn't legally buy a firearm because he was a felon. He couldn't pass a background check. So he went online, found the gun, bought it, and wounded Catherine and murdered her daughter. H.R. 1217 is a bipartisan piece of legislation with 186 coauthors. It is bipartisan and it is pro-Second Amendment. Ninety percent of the American people believe we should expand and strengthen background checks and close those loopholes, a loophole that allowed that murderer to kill Samantha. Mr. Speaker, please bring this bill up for a vote.

Mr. THOMPSON of California

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote against the previous question today so we can bring up amendments that will address the issue of gun violence prevention in our country. Eighty-five percent of Americans believe that we should pass the no fly, no buy bill. Ninety percent of Americans believe that we should expand and enhance background checks for those folks who are trying to buy guns. And we have a perfect opportunity to do it. There are two bills in the House, both of them bipartisan, that address these two issues. Both of them are bipartisan. Both of them are pro Second Amendment. Both bills help keep guns away from criminals, terrorists, and the dangerously mentally ill. Earlier today, some 300 victims and survivors of gun violence assembled outside. I listened to what they had to say. Later, I met with one of the women, one of the victims, Catherine Bodine from Ohio. She was wounded, and her 10-year-old daughter, Samantha, was killed. The murderer was a felon. He could not pass a background check, could not go to a licensed gun dealer and buy a gun. So instead he went online, and he bought a gun online. He wounded this woman, and he killed her 10-year-old daughter, Samantha. We should do everything we can to prevent those sorts of tragedies from happening, and we have a chance to do it with the two bills that are in this House. The background check bill, the bill that would have prevented this murderer from buying a gun online, is not only bipartisan, it is not only pro Second Amendment, it has 186 bipartisan coauthors. This is easy to do. This isn't a heavy lift. Bring the bill to the floor for a vote. Let America see us do our work. Let the Representatives of the American people have a vote on a background check bill that will, in fact, save lives. We know that background checks save lives. Every day, 170 felons are prohibited from buying guns through licensed dealers because of background checks. Every day, 50 domestic abusers are prohibited from buying guns through licensed dealers because of background checks. Why not expand it to include all commercial sales of firearms, not just 60 percent of the commercial sale of firearms? This makes sense. It is bipartisan. It is pro Second Amendment, and it will save lives. It works. We know it works. It will stop criminals. It will stop terrorists, and it will stop the dangerously mentally ill. It will make it much more difficult for them to get guns. Will it stop all violence? No. Nothing can do that, but this is our first line of defense. This is something that this Congress can do that will save lives. Please bring these bills for a vote.

Mr. THOMPSON of California

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I can't believe that our friends on the other side of the aisle want criminals, terrorists, and the dangerously mentally ill to have easy access to firearms. As a matter of fact, there was an amendment on this floor that beefed up the funding for the system that checks on the background checks, and 76 Republicans voted to increase the funding by $20 million--a $20 million funding augmentation to the NICS system. Now you are telling us, ``Well, we supported the funding, but we don't want people to use the system.'' That is an out-and-out waste of taxpayer money. Not bringing these bills up is an out-and-out shameless ordeal on the part of the leadership. You need to bring these bills to the floor. We need to have a vote. We need to do everything we can to make sure our constituents are safe--safe in places of worship, safe in the movie theater, safe in school. We need to make sure that we do all we can to keep our constituents safe. Bring it up for a vote.

Mr. THOMPSON of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate what it is we are trying to do by defeating the previous question and bringing up commonsense, pro-Second Amendment, gun violence prevention legislation. We don't think that terrorists, criminals, or the dangerously mentally ill should have easy access to firearms. We believe that we should do everything possible to make sure that terrorists, criminals, and the dangerously mentally ill can't get their hands on firearms. That is why it is so important to pass the no fly, no buy and to pass the background check legislation. We know that background checks work. Every day, 170 felons are prevented from buying a gun because of the background check, and 50 domestic abusers are prevented from buying a gun because of the background check. That is every day. The bill that we are talking about expands the background checks to include all commercial sales. As the gentleman from Massachusetts just explained, there are loopholes. In some States, you can go online and buy a gun without having a background check. In some States, you can go to a gun show and buy a gun without having a background check. That is absolute foolishness. Now, we are not talking about requiring family members to do background checks. We are not talking about requiring your next-door neighbor to do a background check. We are not talking about requiring your hunting buddy or your shooting buddy to get a background check. We are talking about gun sales through commercial sales--gun shows, newspaper ads, online sales--because we know it works. It is our first line of defense against the criminals, terrorists, and the dangerously mentally ill from being able to easily access firearms. It was once explained that the Federal Government set up a system to screen these folks to make sure that the criminals, the terrorists, the domestic abusers, and the dangerously mentally ill didn't get firearms. What they said is, if you buy it from a licensed dealer, you have to have a background check, but if you buy it from a gun show or if you buy it online, you don't have to have one. The juxtaposition has been made that this is a lot like setting up a screening system after 9/11 that says that all passengers have to go through a metal detector so they don't bring guns, knives, and explosives on the airplane, but only 60 percent of you have to do that. The other 40 percent can go around--you can get on the airplane with whatever you have in your pocket. Then you choose which one goes in the 40 percent line and which one goes in the 60 percent line. It doesn't make sense. We need to have background checks to make sure that criminals, that the dangerously mentally ill, that domestic abusers, and that terrorists don't get their hands on weapons.

Mr. THOMPSON of California

Mr. THOMPSON of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote against this rule so we can bring up an amendment that will keep our constituents safe; a bill that would say if you are on the terrorist watch list, you can't buy a gun; and an amendment that says that if you buy a gun, you should have a background check. Federal law says that if you buy a gun at a licensed dealer, you have to get a background check. So about 60 percent of the guns that are purchased are purchased in a situation where a licensed dealer is involved, and they go through a background check. The reason for this is to make sure that criminals, the dangerously mentally ill, domestic abusers, and terrorists can't get their hands on firearms. It makes it more difficult for them to get their hands on firearms, so it is our first line of defense. The problem is about 40 percent of the guns that are purchased are able to go around that requirement for a background check. Now, the irony is the places where they buy them. They buy them online. They buy them at gun shows. And if you go to a gun show or if you go online, there are licensed dealers that sell guns there. And if you go to the table that the licensed dealer has and try and buy a gun, you have to get a background check. Well, if you can't pass a background check, you can go to the next table, you can find an individual selling guns at a gun show, and you can buy the same gun without going through a background check. Thirty-four States allow guns to be sold through commercial sales without the benefit of a background check. This is tragic. Even if you are from one of the 16 States that don't allow it, all you have to do is, all a terrorist, a criminal, or a domestic abuser, all they have to do is just drive to the State next door that doesn't require background checks, buy the gun, and bring it back to your neighborhood. Now we know this happens. We know this. I have a friend, Elvin Daniels, from Wisconsin, whose sister was threatened by her husband. She got a restraining order. The husband went to the gun store to try and buy a gun, and because there was a restraining order, he was prohibited from buying that gun. So he went online, he bought the same gun he was prohibited from buying in the gun store, killed Elvin's sister and two other people. Background checks work. We know that in the licensed dealers arena, where you have to have a background check, 170 felons a day are prohibited from buying guns. Fifty domestic abusers a day are stopped from buying guns. Yet we allow an avenue for domestic abusers, the dangerously mentally ill, criminals, and terrorists to go straight down the road and buy a gun without the benefit of a background check.

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Now, I want to emphasize there is nothing about either one of our measures--as a matter of fact, they are Republican bills that we are trying to bring to the floor--there is nothing about either one of them that is against the Second Amendment. I am a gun owner. I believe strongly in the Second Amendment. And the Supreme Court spelled out specifically in the Heller decision that individuals have a right to own firearms. But they also said that there can be certain restrictions, restrictions such as criminals, terrorists, domestic abusers, dangerously mentally ill; they can't have guns. Well, you can't do that unless you have a background check. Now, 70 of my friends across the aisle voted to augment the funding for the background check system, $20 million they voted to add to the system. How can you vote to fund a system, spend 20 million taxpayer dollars to fund a system that you won't require people to use? It is absurd. What are you afraid of? What are you afraid of that you won't bring this bill to the floor for a vote?

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. When I spoke earlier, I asked: What are you afraid of? Why won't you bring these bills to the floor? I think back to when I met with the parents of some of the children who were killed in one of the most horrific incidents in our country, the terrible, terrible incident at Sandy Hook Elementary School, and listening to the parents and hearing their stories, and I can't help but think to myself: Are you more afraid to bring this bill to the floor for a vote than those kids were hiding for their lives in those classrooms? Are you more afraid than those movie-goers in Aurora, Colorado, who were hiding, trying not to be killed? Are the people who were praying in Charleston when they were gunned down, are you more afraid; is this more frightening than what they experienced or San Bernardino or Orlando? What is stopping you from bringing commonsense, pro-Second Amendment gun violence prevention legislation to the floor for a vote? Gun owners are for this. I am a gun owner. I have told you that before. As a matter of fact, I am proud to say I am one of the 26 Democrats who were labeled by the rightwing media for being hypocrites because we owned guns and we want to pass gun violence prevention legislation. As a matter of fact, I bought a gun. I bought it before the break but picked it up during the break because, in California, not only are you required to get a background check, but there is a cooling-off period that they require. You have to wait 10 days. So before the break, I bought a gun from a very close friend of mine, someone whom I have known for over 25, 30 years, yet the law says background check. It wasn't a problem. I took it in, left the gun. My friend signed the paper. I signed the paper. Ten days later, over this last break, I came and picked it up. It is no big deal. Why would you want to sell a gun to someone who may be a criminal, dangerously mentally ill, a domestic abuser, or a terrorist? These bills make sense. Bring them to the floor, and let's vote.

Mr. THOMPSON of California

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, it has now been 3\1/2\ years since the horrific tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School. In the past 3\1/2\ years, a lot has happened. There have been 1,182 mass shootings in our country and 34,000-plus people have been killed by someone using a gun. The House has been in session for 526 legislative days, and we have held 30 moments of silence for victims of gun violence. But what hasn't happened in the past 3\1/2\ years is a vote. That is shameful. The American people deserve a Congress that is willing to stand up to the gun lobby and do what it takes to keep our communities safe. There is bipartisan legislation that would prohibit those on the terrorist watch list from being able to purchase firearms legally in our country, and there is bipartisan legislation to close a dangerous loophole in our background check system. Mr. Speaker, give us a vote.

Mr. THOMPSON of California

Mr. THOMPSON of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I, too, plan to vote to defeat the previous question so we can have some debate on some gun violence prevention legislation-- which is long overdue to be debated in this body. The gentleman mentioned that he is going to offer our amendment on the no fly, no buy legislation--a Republican bill, authored by Republican Congressman Peter King from New York. I think it is essential that we do that. I understand we are also going to introduce an amendment on the background check legislation, which is also a bipartisan measure--with the overwhelmingly bipartisan support of 187 coauthors in this body. You have got to look at a lot of bills to find one that has that many coauthors--and bipartisan coauthors at that. Also, it is a measure that has overwhelming support amongst the American people. Upwards of around 90 percent of Americans believe that we should do everything possible to make it more difficult for people who shouldn't have guns to be able to get guns. That is what our bill does. That is what our effort does. It makes it more difficult for individuals who shouldn't have guns to get those guns. I have said it before on this floor, in an attempt to try and get a vote on this critically important legislation, that, if the Republicans don't like the way we are working, work with us. Help us figure out what we can do to make our communities safer. To my friend on the other side of the aisle, do the Republican Members really believe that it should be easy for criminals, the mentally ill, domestic abusers, or terrorists to get guns? I know their constituents don't think that they should be able to easily get guns. The truth of the matter is that the background check legislation that we have makes it more difficult. That is our first line of defense against criminals, the dangerously mentally ill, domestic abusers, and terrorists from being able to get guns. We should bring that bill to the floor; we should debate that bill; and we should pass it. We should be in step with the 90 percent of American people who think that comprehensive background checks should be the law of this great land. I am a gun owner. I believe strongly in the Second Amendment. Personally, I wouldn't sell a gun to people unless I knew they weren't criminals, they weren't dangerously mentally ill, they weren't domestic abusers, and they weren't terrorists. How do you find out? If you are selling your gun to those you do not know, how do you know if they fall into one of these categories? That is why the background check is so critically important.

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that 34 States do not go beyond what that Federal floor is. They allow guns to be sold at gun shows, through newspaper ads, or online without the benefit of there being a background check. We should stop that. We should make sure that we do everything we can to ensure that criminals, the dangerously mentally ill, domestic abusers, and terrorists don't get guns. Right now, some 40 percent of the firearms that are sold in our country are sold without the benefit of there being a background check. How does that make our constituents safe? How does that make America more safe? It is shameful. We need to bring this bill to a vote. We need to pass a background check. We need to make sure that we know who it is who is buying guns. We must do everything we can to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have guns: criminals, the dangerously mentally ill, domestic abusers, and terrorists.

Mr. THOMPSON of California

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, Americans want Congress to pass meaningful legislation that will actually keep guns out of dangerous hands. So what is our majority doing? They are bringing up a bill that was not only drafted by the gun lobby, but that makes it nearly impossible to block gun sales to suspected terrorists. That is shameful. The American people deserve a Congress that is willing to stand up to the gun lobby and do what it takes to help keep our communities safe. Congress has a responsibility to listen to the people who we are supposed to represent, to put partisan politics aside, and to bring up commonsense, bipartisan legislation to keep guns away from those who shouldn't have them: suspected terrorists, criminals, domestic abusers, and the dangerously mentally ill. And the American people want those bills brought up now. More than 30 people are killed every day by someone using a gun. We can't afford to allow more innocent lives to be lost to gun violence. Just a few weeks ago, 49 innocent people were shot to death in the worst mass shooting our country has ever seen. Sadly, this isn't an insulated case. It has now been 3\1/2\ years since the tragedy at Sandy Hook took the lives of 20 elementary school kids and six educators, but for reasons that I will never understand, that horrific tragedy wasn't enough to convince the Republican leadership that something-- something--needs to be done to prevent the next tragedy. Let me give you some numbers: Three and a half, that is how many years it has been since Sandy Hook; 34,000, that is the number of people who have been killed by someone using a gun since Sandy Hook; 1,182, that is the number of mass shootings that have taken place since Sandy Hook; 520, that is the number of days the House has been in session; 30, the moments of silence that we have observed on this House floor because of gun violence. Most important, zero. Zero. That is the number of votes that this House has taken to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. What is the majority so afraid of? Is their fear greater than the fear of those young kids at Sandy Hook, or those parishioners in Charleston, or those young people at the nightclub in Orlando? It is long past time for the House to give us a vote on meaningful legislation to make sure that terrorists, criminals, domestic abusers, and the dangerously mentally ill don't have easy access to guns in our country. There is bipartisan legislation that would prohibit those on the FBI's terrorist watch list from being able to purchase firearms, and I have authored legislation, which has bipartisan support, to require background checks for all commercial gun sales. Background checks are our first line of defense when it comes to stopping dangerous people from getting firearms. They work. Every day more than 170 felons, some 50 domestic abusers, and nearly 20 fugitives are stopped from buying a gun because of background checks. But in 34 States, criminals, domestic abusers, and the dangerously mentally ill can bypass the background check by purchasing guns online, at a gun show, or through an ad in the paper. This is a dangerous loophole that needs to be closed, and it needs to be closed now. The bill has 186 bipartisan coauthors. Bring our bill up for a vote. There is absolutely no reason why anyone should oppose this background check bill. Not only is it bipartisan, it respects the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. I am a gun guy. I own guns. I support the Second Amendment. If this bill did anything to violate those rights, my name wouldn't be on it. All this background check bill does is require that folks pass a background check before purchasing guns online, at a gun show, or through an ad. Plain and simple. It does nothing to infringe on the Second Amendment right of law-abiding citizens to own firearms. This debate on background checks isn't a choice between either protecting the Second Amendment or reducing gun violence. It is about the willingness of a responsible majority to do both. If there is one thing we should all be able to agree on, it is that suspected terrorists, criminals, domestic abusers, and the dangerously mentally ill shouldn't have guns. Mr. Speaker, give us a vote. Bring up H.R. 1076: bipartisan, effective, no fly, no buy legislation. And bring up H.R. 1217: bipartisan background check legislation. Mass shootings followed by moments of silence and no action cannot become America's new normal. We need to vote, and we need to vote now.

Mr. THOMPSON of California

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Ms. Marina Torres who is being honored by the Calistoga Associated Teachers upon her retirement after 35 years of service to Calistoga Elementary School and our Calistoga community. Ms. Torres, a native of Monterey Park, California, earned two Bachelor of Arts degrees. One from the University of California at Santa Barbara for Combined Social Sciences in 1979 and one from Sonoma State University for Latino Studies with a minor in Children's Literature in 1981. Throughout her long tenure as a teacher at Calistoga Elementary, Ms. Torres has been a dedicated mentor to her students and a pioneer in bilingual education for young children. In fact, Ms. Torres was the first Latina teacher hired by the Calistoga Joint Unified School District in 1981. She translated her academic and personal background into a passion for educating students about living in a culturally diverse community. Ms. Torres launched the Student Advocate Program in 1987 to address the needs of students in crisis and was inducted into the ``Who's Who of American Teachers'' in 1995 for her innovative teaching and dedication to her students' needs. Ms. Torres shares her experience with new teachers starting their careers as a beginning teacher support and assessment provider in Napa County. A resilient fighter, Ms. Torres has overcome two different forms of cancer. Now in remission, she is an outspoken advocate for early cancer screening and expanding access to health care. During retirement, she plans to continue her support for at-risk children and for expanding education in the Calistoga community. Mr. Speaker, Marina Torres has devoted 35 years to serving her students and our community as both a teacher and an advocate for others' needs. She is a friend of Calistoga and a friend of mine. Therefore, it is fitting and proper that we honor her here today and extend our best wishes for an enjoyable retirement and many happy memories to come with her husband Michael and her children Frank, Rafael and Liliana.

Mr. THOMPSON of California

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Jan Sabo, the Assistant Superintendent of the Napa County Office of Education, upon her retirement from an impressive career in education that spanned 42 years. A New Jersey native, Ms. Sabo completed her B.S. in Education at Boston University and her Master in Education at Lesley University before attending the University of Massachusetts and the University of California, Davis for her post-graduate work. Ms. Sabo has held a number of positions during her 19 years with the Napa County Office of Education. She joined the office as a Resource Specialist and served as the Coordinator of Curriculum and Instruction and as Director of Curriculum and Instruction before assuming her current position as Assistant Superintendent of Academic Services. Throughout her time with the Napa County Office of Education, Ms. Sabo has overseen early childhood education and summer programs, and has dedicated particular attention to the development of academic services for special education and low-income students. In addition to her work in education, Ms. Sabo is a leader in our community. She spearheaded the creation of the Education Support Team serving Napa, Solano, and Contra Costa, which raises funds to support education across three counties in Northern California. Ms. Sabo belongs to the Association of California School Administrators, is a board member of Congregation Beth Shalom, and co-chairs the Every Student Succeeding Committee. She also volunteers time as a mentor for at-risk youth, to support the Humane Society, and with political organizations including the League of Conservation Voters. Mr. Speaker, Ms. Sabo has dedicated her career to ensuring every student in our community receives a top-notch education from the day they first step foot in a classroom. Therefore, it is fitting and proper that we honor her here today and extend our best wishes for an enjoyable retirement and many happy memories to come with her husband, Tom, and children Sam, Emma, and Mary.

Mr. THOMPSON of California

Mr. THOMPSON of California. I thank the gentlewoman for the compassion that she brings to this debate, and it is understandable. Having met with and spoken with many of the parents who lost their children at Sandy Hook Elementary School, to talk to them, and to have to tell them that yet another year has passed and the leadership in this Congress has refused, has refused to hold one single vote on any measure relating to gun violence, is just despicable and very, very sad. I know that the gentlewoman from Connecticut goes home every weekend and talks with those parents and those community members who were shaken to their core to get that call that there was a shooting at an elementary school, and that their child was involved, and had to come down to that school and learn that their child was taken from them. It is unacceptable that we allow this to continue. When Sandy Hook took place, I was asked by the minority leadership to chair a task force on gun violence prevention, and I took that on. I took it on for a couple of reasons: One, I know it had to be done; and two, I bring a unique perspective to this debate. I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. I am a gun owner. I am a hunter. I have vast experiences with firearms, including carrying a military-type assault weapon for the tour that I served in Vietnam. I consider myself a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, and would do nothing to take an individual's Second Amendment right away from them. As I say, I support it strongly. I also believe that, as a responsible gun owner, I, and all of my fellow responsible gun owners, have a responsibility to answer this call, to figure out how we can put on the books laws that--while protecting the Second Amendment, while protecting an individual's rights to own firearms and use firearms for target practicing, collecting, hunting, or self-defense, we have a responsibility to make sure we keep firearms out of the hands of people who shouldn't have firearms. Criminals and the dangerously mentally ill should not be able to have firearms. They shouldn't be able to buy them, they shouldn't be able to own them, they shouldn't be able to use them. And surely this Congress can come together and figure out a way to make certain that this doesn't happen, to the best that we possibly can. Now I will be the first to admit there is no bill in the world that we can pass that will solve every issue related to gun violence. But doggone it, we should try. We owe it to our constituents. We owe it to those who lost loved ones through gun violence, and we owe it to the responsible, law-abiding gun owners of this country to try. Now I thought we had the makings of a good proposal when I sat down with my colleague and my friend from New York, Republican Peter King, and we put together the legislation, commonly referred to as ``the King-Thompson Bill,'' to require that anyone who purchases a firearm through a commercial sale would be required to go through a background check. You wouldn't think it would be necessary. You wouldn't think that anybody would want to sell a firearm to someone who may possibly be a danger to their community or to our society. But the fact of the matter is that there are people who sell firearms willy-nilly to anybody with the cash to buy them. And we need to step in and make sure that we stop willy-nilly from selling these firearms to criminals and the dangerously mentally ill, and that is what the King-Thompson bill does. It says that if you buy a firearm through a commercial sale, you have to have a background check. Now anybody who buys a firearm in any of our 50 States through a licensed commercial dealer has to go through a background check. That is the floor. That is the minimum Federal law. Some States, however, don't go any further than that, which leaves this big loophole. It exempts individual sales, and some of those individual sales are commercial. When you set up a table at a gun show and sell firearm after firearm after firearm, or when you go online and you list your firearms for sale as an individual, people can call and say: I want to buy that gun. No background check needed because you are buying it from an individual. You can meet down in the parking lot of your local whatever store and you can make that transaction. That needs to be stopped. Thirty-four States don't do anything about that. The King-Thompson legislation would do something about that. It would say that you have to first get a background check. Now it is a bipartisan bill. As a matter of fact, there are 186 Members of this Congress who are coauthors of that bill. Five of them are Republicans. Ninety percent of the American people believe that you should have background checks for commercial sale of firearms. Eighty-five percent of NRA members believe you should have background checks for firearms. They know that this is the first line of defense. Again, it won't stop everything, but it does work. 170 felons a day, through the existing background check system, are stopped from buying firearms. We know it works. Sadly, about 40 percent of all firearm purchases are done outside of federally licensed commercial sites, so 40 percent of the people who are buying guns today are able to avoid a background check. That is wrong. We ought to close that. When we started the Gun Violence Prevention Task Force, we met with everybody. I conducted the meetings. I conducted the hearings. We met with gun owner groups, we met with gun dealers, people who sell firearms, we met with gun experts, we met with people who are opposed to guns and people who are for guns. We heard from police, sheriffs, the Federal agency that deals with gun laws. We heard ad nauseam. We heard from the NRA. We brought everybody in, all the outside gun groups, to tell us what we needed to do. And without question, we came away from that with the understanding that background checks is the number one thing that we can do if we want to make a dent in this gun violence problem that we have. And we should have a vote on that bill. Now, we know that it works. I told you that, but don't take my word for it. Look at the facts. When Connecticut passed what they call their Permit to Purchase, which is a background check legislation, their State saw a 40 percent drop in homicides by firearms; 40 percent drop. Now, conversely, at the same time, Missouri repealed Permit to Purchase, which led to a 25 percent increase in homicide by firearms. Those numbers alone tell us that we need to do something. We need to do everything we can to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. And, again, if you are dangerously mentally ill, if you are a criminal, if you are a domestic abuser, or if you are a terrorist, you should not be able to have a firearm. It is this Congress' responsibility to do what we can. Background checks are our first line of defense to making sure these aforementioned groups don't get their hands on firearms. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. Esty).

Mr. THOMPSON of California. I thank the gentlewoman for her comments. She is absolutely correct. Our job is not that hard. Could you imagine that? On this floor, we are all parents; we have kids. Could you imagine losing your child? You send them to school, where they are supposed to be safe, and get the call that your son or your daughter has been murdered at school? That is hard. That is difficult. What we are doing is not hard. It certainly shouldn't be hard for the Republican leadership to allow us to have a vote on gun violence prevention legislation that would help prevent these things from happening. They just happen too often. Every day, 31 people are murdered by someone using a gun. Every day, 151 people are shot in an assault in our country. That is hard. What is the Republican leadership afraid of? You are afraid to take a vote? Are you more afraid than the people that were in that nightclub in Orlando hiding in the restrooms hoping they wouldn't be the next one who was murdered? Are you more afraid than those children in the classroom in Newtown, Connecticut? Give us a vote. Let's address this issue. It is shameful. There is nothing to be afraid of. We were elected to come here and do a job. Give us a vote. Our Gun Violence Prevention Task Force I mentioned heard from every imaginable interest on this issue. We took what we heard, and we put it in this legislation. The King-Thompson background check legislation addressed a whole list of issues other than just the background check provision. They were issues that were brought to us primarily by the NRA. The NRA asked for specific things. They asked us to make sure that there was due process for veterans adjudicated as mentally defective before losing their firearms rights. We put that in the bill. There was a request to clarify that the submissions to the NICS system don't violate HIPAA, the medical protections for patients. We put that in the bill. The NRA was concerned that the length of time that you have to wait in order to get your firearm after you passed a background check was too long, so we put in place a provision that reduces the purchase proceed timeline. Right now it is 3 days. Eventually, it would phase into being 24 hours, with the idea that the NICS system would have more complete records because the bill also allows the States to get grant funding to allow them to better get their information into the NICS, and our bill requires the Federal courts to put records into the NICS system. The NRA said that hunting buddies shouldn't have to go through the background check. If you are at the duck club, your buddy wants to sell a shotgun, you want to buy it, you have been hunting buddies for a long time and you know one another, they said they shouldn't have to go through a background check, so we put a hunting buddies known person exemption into our bill. There was great concern that this bill would lead to some sort of Big Brother list of any gun owners. Not only is that nonsense, but we took their concern and we raised them one. We added a 15-year felony for the improper storage of records by anyone in the government. We also heard concerns that members of the armed services were conflicted. They have a permanent home address and a permanent duty station request, and that complicated their effort to own and purchase firearms. We put a provision in the bill that said members of our armed services can count their home and their permanent duty station as their residences. We took care of all of these concerns. These are things that the NRA said they have been trying to fix for years. Well, we fixed it in the King-Thompson bill. At the same time, we take a step to fix this terrible problem we have where people can buy guns without having a background check--the dangerously mentally ill, criminals, domestic abusers, or terrorists. This is a good bill, as I said, with 186 bipartisan coauthors. This is a bill that should be passed. No one knows that more than the gentleman from New York, Congressman Israel. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from the State of New York (Mr. Israel).

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to talk about an issue that is very alarming to many people across the country, an issue that saddens everyone, and an issue that, sadly, isn't being addressed by this Congress. Last week, we lost 49 innocent lives in the worst mass shooting that our country has ever seen. Sadly, it is not an insulated case. Let me give you some numbers: In the 3 years since the terrible tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School, there have been over 1,100 mass shootings. More than 34,000 lives have been cut short by someone using a gun. The House of Representatives has held 30 moments of silence for the victims of mass shootings since Sandy Hook, and yet we haven't taken a single vote on legislation that would help keep guns out of dangerous hands. Mr. Speaker, I think that is shameful. The American people deserve more than silence. The American people deserve a Congress that is willing to stand up and do whatever it takes to keep our communities safe. That starts by making sure that terrorists, criminal domestic abusers, and the dangerously mentally ill don't have easy access to purchase guns in our country. Today, suspected terrorists can legally buy guns in our country. Individuals who are on the FBI's terrorist watch list can walk into a gun store, pass a background check, and walk out with a gun or the guns of their choosing--and they can do it legally. Since 2004, more than 2,000 suspected terrorists were able to purchase guns. More than 90 percent of all suspected terrorists who tried to purchase guns in the last 11 years walked away with the weapon that they went in to buy. Now, in the wake of the horrific attacks in Orlando, Congress must make it a priority to keep deadly weapons out of the hands of suspected terrorists. There is bipartisan legislation that would prohibit those on the terrorist watch list from being able to purchase firearms in our country. This bill is common sense. If you are too dangerous to fly, you are too dangerous to buy a gun. It is long past time for the Republican leadership to bring that bill up for a vote. We also need to pass my bipartisan bill to require background checks for all commercial gun sales. Background checks are our first line of defense when it comes to stopping dangerous people from getting firearms. We know that background checks work. Every day, they stop more than 170 felons, some 50 domestic abusers, and nearly 20 fugitives from buying a gun. Unfortunately, in 34 States, criminals, domestic abusers, and the dangerously mentally ill can bypass a background check by purchasing guns online or at a gun show. This is a dangerous loophole that needs to be closed. Yesterday, Senate Republicans blocked consideration of no fly, no buy legislation and a measure to strengthen and enhance background checks. Now the Republican House is going on with business as usual, without giving the American people a vote to help prevent gun violence in our country. If the Republican leadership agrees that suspected terrorists, criminals, domestic abusers, and the dangerously mentally ill shouldn't be able to buy guns, they should give us a vote. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. Esty), the Member who represents Sandy Hook, where the Newtown tragedy took place.

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for his spot-on comments, passionate comments. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from the State of California (Mr. Ruiz). He is a colleague of mine from California. As an emergency room doctor, Dr. Raul Ruiz not only understands that we need to pass this legislation, but he has seen the carnage that has come in for his care.