talk about civil rights, watergate, commemorating civil war reeks in national parks, and the new birmingham national rights monument. live coverage of the annual meeting saturday on american history tv on c-span 3. next testimony from officials with atf and air force on proposed firearm regulations. and updating the criminal background check system. the measure proposes banning bump stocks and similar devices that enable guns to fire as fast as an automatic weapon. senator diane feinstein is the ranking member of the senate judiciary committee, she introduced the legislation.

good morning everybody. and thank you for attending today's hearing. we gather here today in the wake

of violent acts by evil men in las vegas and southern springs, and those two places get all the attention, but there is lesser number of people have died other places as well. today, with the help of our witnesses, we hope to learn more about how those tragedies might have been prevented. and we will discuss various proposals on preventing similar tragedies in the future. before october 1st, 2017, few americans new whatknew what a b stock was. then a shooter used bump stocks to fire more than 1100 rounds into a crowd attending a country music concert. the shooting lasted only ten minutes. the bump stocks enabled this person to fire oammunition as i he had used an automatic weapon.

58 people died. 500 wounded. it was the deadliest mass shooting in our history. our laws prohibit the manufacturer of machine guns, for decades and decades that's been the case, and greatly restrict their sale. but during the obama administration the aft determined that bump stocks are legal. a number of members of congress led by senator heller of nevada recently wrote the atf to ask it to revisit its decisions. two days ago, the atf announced it was changing its mind and issued advance notice of proposed rule making that would apply the statutory machine gun to bump stocks and similar devices. publication of this notice will provide the you public and firearms industry an opportunity to submit formal comments to atf on the proposed rule making.

we do not have any proposed regulatory text before us today. bull i think the committ but i think the committee needs to know why it was incorrect. it is also important for the committee to understand how atf is prose go to interpret the stat torety machine gun. under current case law the courts may give deaf rans to the atf. depending on their interpretation, congress might wish to weigh in. today, we will also have a discussion about the institute criminal background check system, commonly known by the acronym nix. nix is the system used by those licensed to sell firearms to

quickly determine whether a prospective buyer is eligible to buy whatever he wants to buy. nix background checks are supposed to prevent prohibitive persons like convicted felons from buying these. every year tens of thousands of prohibited persons are turned away from purchasing weapons. but for nix to keep weapons out of the hands of dangerous individuals, federal and state agencies must swiftly and accurately report information on prohibited persons. unfortunately, this does not always happen as it should. the southern land springs shooting was carried out by an individual who should not have been able to purchase a firearm. while in the air force, devon kelly, was court martialed for

domestic violence and was discharged for bad con duchblgt but because his information was not entered into the nix system as the law requires, kelly was able to purchase four weapons, after his release from prison, including the weapon he used in the southern springs shooting. kelly killed 26 people attending sunday services at first baptist church there in southern land springs and wounded 20 more. in the days following the shooting, the air force acknowledged its role in failing to report kelly's conviction to the fbi. air force failure to comply with nix reporting standards is in excusable. but i do appreciate the way the air force has moved to accept responsibility for their mistakes. and i look forward to learning more about the steps the air force is taking to make sure that every prohibited person is reported to the fbi.

nix reporting issues are not limited to the air force, however. reports on nix in 1997 and 2015 showed severe reporting problems across the department of defense. pa report released by the department of defense inspector general just two days ago shows that from 2015 to 2016, more than 30,000 of convictions in the department of defense were not reported to the fbi. other federal agencies and states can also improve their nix reporting. i was pleased to hear that my former college, attorney general jeff sessions, ordered a federal review of nix by fbi to ensure all federal agencies are reporting all required information into nix. as far as states are concerned, some progress in nicks reporting

has been made in recent years, especially in areas of reporting mental health records. but some states, even those represented by members of our committee, such as rhode island, vermont, hawaii, and louisiana, continue to lag behind. these states reported fewer records to nixon a per capita basis than the other states, and more improvement can be made in other areas, such as reporting domestic violence offenses. it is clear this is a systemic problem and that there are many thousands of abusers who are not in the nick system but absolutely should be in that system. states should also report to ensure that all records submitted to nicks are complete and up to date. all of us wish that the recent strategies in texas and nevada could have been avoided. nothing we'll do today or in the weeks to come will restore lives

for those that were lost in those two cities. we owe it to the victims of those shootings to seriously consider what we should do as policy makers. as legislatures one of the most powerful tools we have is legislation. the problem with such a big hammer, however, everything looks like a nail. we must yield our power carefully, particularly where it involves the fundamental liberties of our public. the supreme court has made it very clear that laws that concern the second amendment right to keep and bear arms are subject to heighten scrutiny. so new laws affecting firearms and firearms accessories must be narrowly tailored to address important government interests. in addition, we have laws and regulations already on the books that require nicks reporting and that regulate automatic weapons. the atf has just issued a notice that they intend to promulgate a

new regulation about bump stocks based on existing law. before we pass new laws, we should make sure that our current laws are being effectively followed and enforced. we should also make sure that existing programs designed to ensure nicks reporting compliance are fully funded and effectively run. so i look forward to this hearing. and answers to some of these questions. and, once again, i'll thank you again, because witnesses go to a lot of work to appear here, thank you for what you've done to make this hearing and bring light on this subject. senator feinstein. >> thank you very much mr. chairman and thank you for holding the hearing. and thank you for allowing senator cortez, masto from the state of nevada, so much affected by this issue, to testify here this morning. it is very much appreciated. two months ago, we witnessed the deadliest mass shooting in our country's history in las vegas.

it was on october 1st, a sole gunman sprayed over 1100 rounds into a crowd of concert goers from the 32nd floor of a hotel room in a matter of minutes. the attack left 58 people dead and over 500 injured. witnesses describe the scene as a war zone. think about that, a war zone at a music concert. this was conducted by one 64-year-old man with a vast arsenal of weapons. how did he exact such devastation within minutes? he had at least, i understand, 23 guns, thousands of rounds of ammunition, and at least 12 of something called a bump stock. bump stocks allow a gunman with a semi automatic weapon to mimic

automatic gunfire. with a bump stock device attached semi automatic weapons can fire up to 700 rounds per minute. i'd like to ask you to turn your attention to the screens to a video clip that shows how these devices work.

>> machine guns and guns with automatic fire are already banned under federal law. bump stocks are not. the national firearms act was enacted in 1934 to strictly regulate machine guns. it was passed in response to the saint valentine's day massacre of 1929 when thompson machine guns called tommy guns were used in a chicago mass shooting by mobster gang members. the original law heavily regulated machine guns, but later the law was updated, in 1986, to ban all future automatic weapons from private possession. there is no reason to believe that this ban should not also be applied to bump stock devices and other similar devices. while some have argued that the atf can ban or regulate these

devices under existing law, the atf has repeatedly stated that bump stocks cannot be regulated because they do not fall within the legal definition of a machine gun. we introduced a straightforward bill to fix this, to treat bump stocks and other devices like machine guns. specifically, the bill bans, quote, the import, sale, manufacture, transfer, or position of a trigger crank, a bump device, or any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment or accessory that's designed or functions to design the rate of fire from a semi automatic rifle. that's what the bill actually says. several witnesses today, including police chief tom manger, the president of the major cities police chiefs

association, will discuss how bump stock devices put us all at risk. the witnesses today will also discuss the despicable attack that occurred a month after las vegas, at a baptist church in southern land springs, texas. there a convicted domestic abuser who was able to pass a fbi background check and obtain four guns brutally murdered 26 people with victims ranging from 18 months old to 77 years old. i understand one was a pregnant woman with a boy child. it was an act of pure evil. we were all devastated and infuriated to find out that the fbi background check missed the gunman. he should never have been allowed to get those guns. the air force failed to provide the fbi background check system

with records indicating he assaulted his wife and infant stepchild while in the air force. and i must say that i had a very fine call from the secretary of the air force yesterday, and she has taken, i think, very effective action, which i think she will outline later this morning. so this is all unacceptable. i understand that we need to look forward to the future. i also understand that it was almost five years ago to the day that america witnessed the tragic shooting of elementary children and their teachers at new town, connecticut. and mr. chairman, i just want to take this opportunity before i end to acknowledge the fact that there are large numbers of people here today in this audience who have been affected

by gun violence. so i would like to ask that they stand, and i would like to recognize the representatives from the brady campaign, the new town action alliance, mom's demand action, gab i gifford and mark kelly's group, the police foundation, the center for american progress, and the coalition to stop gun violence, and the national task force to end sexual and domestic violence. if those representatives are here, if you would stand, please, we'd like to give you a round of applause and thank you for attending this hearing. [ applause ] >> thank you very much. mr. chairman. >> thank you for attending, everybody for attending, but those that have felt the tragedies, particularly. we now turn to the senator from nevada that will speak because of the tragedy that happened in her state, and any views she

wants to give us, then we will hear from senator cornyn, and if senator, both senators from texas want to speak about the tragedy in their state, we'll do that, then we'll go to our second panel. you are our first panel. so, please, cortez, go ahead. >> chairman grassley, ranking ste feinstein, thank you for holding this hearing and allowing me to testify. our subjected to is difficult but also incredibly important. on october 1st, 2017, my hometown where i was born and raised, las vegas, experienced a tragedy. 58 innocent people were murdered. and more than 500 were injured after a gunman rained down fire at the route 91 harvest festival. this event now has assad distinction of being the worst mass shooting in modern american history. the human cost is in callable.

hundreds of people lost loved ones, and those who survived must not only he'll from physical wounds but cope with the mental scarce. as members of the senate judiciary committee, you are in a unique position to take the first steps to end these sense less massacres. i ask the senators of this committee to be brave and do what's right for the victims and survivors of las vegas, southern land springs, sandy hook, aurora, and countless communities that want to see these reforms. i'll never forget the stories i heard walking through our hospitals and meeting with victims and our first responders. entire emergency room and hallway floors stained with blood. a recovery room in one of our hospitals turned into a make shift morgue. a victim's phone continuously calling from her father who would soon learn she would never be coming home. will was life story cut short for each of the 58 people killed

that night. we have come to learn their stories of sacrifice, courage and love. we have also learned the thousands of stories from those in the crowd who did not hesitate to help others. they are our true heros. stories like that of heather goose who is here today and you will hear from. but i also want to recognize two other survivors of the october 1st shooting who are here. heather brown salon and christine korea. lives were saved because stranger helped stranger. there were helpers like jonathan, despite receiving a gunshot wound to the neck, jonathan saved the lives of 30 people by leading them out of the venue and aiding them in taking cover. other helpers like tammy an iraq war veteran stayed behind to help victims on the ground. she used her er nursing experience with the injuries, despite her best efforts couldn't save one young woman and had the heartbreaking task

of telling her mother she was dead. she said, quote, i'll never forget her face. i had to tell the mom her daughter was gone. as alive long las vegas, i have never seen such a profound community response as i saw in the hours, days, and weeks after the shooting. i continue to be amazed at the strength and the spirit that will help us move forward. following this terrible event, i have focused on working with my colleagues on reforms that would stop tragedies like this from happening again. as members of this committee are aware, the mass shooting in my hometown was made morley that will because of a firearm referred to as a bump stock. as you've seen this is a device designed to turn a semi automatic weapon into ha deadlier weapon. i believe what we hear today will confirm these devices should be kept off our streets. i am proud to cosponsor senator

feinstein gunfire prevention act, a gil that would outlaw bump stocks. i believe we must pass this legislation so the law is clear. bump stocks do not belong in our country. we cannot and should not wait to do this through a lengthy rule making progress that could take years. the victims of the october 1st massacre and all americans need action now. i also welcome a discussion on the ways we can improve the national instant criminal background system. our wounds from las vegas had not yet healed when we learned of another terrible shooting, this time in sort land springs, texas chbl the tragedy event at the first baptist church drove home we must re-evaluate our background system so those who cannot have a gun cannot buy one. i am proud to coand authorize the nicks act which would fight tighter protocols to ensure the crucial information of prohibited purchasers is up loaded into the nicks database. i hope the testimony today will

inform hour work on this important legislation. as a gun owner myself, i understand the importance of our second amendment rights. hundreds of thousands of law-abiding nevadians own guns, it is part of the culture of our state. but my constituents also understand there are common sense steps we can take to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of criminals. this hearing is an important first step to making meaningful change. and i look forward to working with members of this committee on the next steps we can make to make america safer. every day, every day i think of the victims and survivors of the las vegas shooting, and every day i try to honor their legacy. thank you for the opportunity to share their stories today. >> senator, thank you very much. we usually don't ask questions of our colleagues, so you are free to go if you want to. senator corrine. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i appreciate you and the ranking

member senator feinstein getting us together on this very important topic. and i want to thank senator cortez and heller for your leadership following the wake of the horrific shooting in las vegas. texas suffered its own tragedy a month ago on november 5th when a deranged gunman shot and killed 26 people worshipping at the first baptist church in sort land springs. as senator cruz and i learned when we went down to sutherland screens the gunman shot through the exterior walls of the church while people were worshipping inside. and then entered a side door to shoot the wounded in the head and otherwise end their lives. it was a horrible and who fivic experience. but i think we need to recognize, too, that were it not for the heroic actions of steven

willendorf, more deaths would have occurred. steven willendorf was a trained instructor who heard the gunshots and ran a block away in bear feet to the scene along with the rifle and shooted on him and had him flee wounding him two. and with the help of johnny a neighbor driving down the church they chased down the shooter and made sure the rampage ended. senate judiciary committee is holding this hearing today to ask what we are going to do about these horrific events. i personally have gotten little tired of the statements following this tragedies that we need to do something. do something. i think it's pretty clear, particularly when it comes to fixing our broken background system what that system is. and if we do that something, it will save lives. and every day we let the current

dysfuncti dysfunction in the background check system continue lives are in jeopardy. so i hope we will do something, but that stg will make a difference and save lives. we can do it. i think it's important what the bureau of alcohol tobacco and firearms is doing to re-evaluate the legality of bump stocks. i share many of the concerns expressed. shortly after the shooting we learned in sort land springs we learned the victim had criminal history of mental illness that should have prevented him from purchasing firearms. he simply lied when he purchased these firearms from a federally licensed firearms dealer, but because the information had not been up loaded by the air force into the nicks background system, it simply wasn't available to prevent him from purchasing these guns. i appreciate general goldfine and secretary of the air force's

response. they recognize what a problem this is. and they have worked quickly to try to address it. but it is simply unacceptable when you look across the united states department of defense, and the failure to upload this essential information, this required information in the background check system. and i hope if anything good comes out of this tragedy, it will be that we finally fix on a bipartisan basis this broken background check system. like senator cortez masto, i'm a gun owner too, i believe in the second amendment. i believe we each have an individual right to keep and bear arms. and legal gun owners like steven will enford, not only are not a threat to the kmupt, they can help protect the community when the police are not readily available. but simply no excuse for not enforcing current law.

it could have avoided the tragedy at virginia tech in 2007 when ha person who had been adjudicated mentally i'l, that was not updated into the system, and he got a firearm, and we know what happened after that. so i am actually pleased that following this tragedy in sutherland springs, we have decided to do something on a bipartisan basis. there are 25 cosponsors of the fix nicks act. it is a balanced and bipartisan piece of legislation and it has one objective and one objective only, to make sure that federal and state agencies are complying with the current law in up loading complete and accurate records to the nicks system. i for one never want to have to look a mother or a father or a brother or a sister or a husband or a wife in the face and say, yes, we could have acted to

prevent a tragedy, but we didn't. we didn't do our job. the fix nicks act is supported by a number of groups across the political spectrum, from second amendment groups like the nra and the national shooting sports foundation, law enforcement groups like the internal order of police and domestic violence groups like the national coalition against domestic violence. so i want to thank my colleagues, all of my colleagues, for joining me in this effort. this is something that will save lives, mr. chairman. thank you for holding this hearing and highlighting the problems that we have and what solutions we have available to us to fix the broken background check system and save lives. >> senator cruz. >> tlaung, mr. chairman. sutherland springs, in texas,

saw a truly horrific mass murder. i was in sutherland springs the day after the shooting. i stood in that sanctuary where over 450 bullets had been fired. pews overturned. shattered glass. pools of blood. as those who had come that sunday morning to worship, hid in fear and terror while a deranged lunatic walked down the center aisle of a small country sanctuary and systematically executed every man woman and child he saw with a shooting to the head shooting as young as 18 months old. i've spent time with the pastor and wife who lost their 14-year-old daughter. holding them, crying with them,

praying with them. i spent time with the victims. one individual lost eight members of his family, including his parents, and his wife and unborn child. one little girl who is 7 saw two of her siblings murdered right in front of her. heide and i have a 7-year-old daughter at home. i don't know how that precious girl moves on from that tragedy. one of the shooting victims, when i visited him at the hospital at brooks medical center, he had a ventilator on, his right arm was badly shot up, but he could write with his left hand. and he wrote in text, don't blame god. this is evil. we saw the face of evil in

sutherland springs. most who ihorrific thing i've sn my life. we also at the same time saw incredible bravery. steven will enford a neighbor who lived a block away daughter called and said someone is shooting at the church. he ran to his gun safe and pulled out his rifle, an ar 15, and he ran a block to the church, barefoot, didn't bother to put on shoes, sheltered behind a pickup truck. shooter was still in the church was still executing people hand he had his pointed at one woman, when steven engaged him and brought him outside the church. what proceeded was a gun fight. the shooter fired repeatedly at will enford. i stood by the pickup truck where he sheltered. behind him the house had bullet holes in the walls and windows. steven was an nra rifle

instructor. he shot the shooter twice, once in the side, once in the leg. shooter threw down his rife i'll. rumd in t jumped in the car and sped off. he waived down johnny who he didn't know and said someone shot off the church. he jumped in the truck with him. the two of them followed the shooter. called 911. were speaking to police directing where the shooter was. the shooter pulled over and took a gun and finally took his own life. the day after the shooting, i spoke with steven will enford, he's a humble, simple man. he's a plumber. media descended upon him. he is not interested in the media attention at all. what he said that next day, he said, look, i'm not a hero. i don't know why people are

using words like that. i was scared out of my mind. i was terrified. my response, i said mr. will enford, courage is not the absence of fear. courage is acting in the face of fear. and i'll tell you what a half dozen law enforcement agents told me that day on monday, and then i was back there all day wednesday of that week, and they said the same thing, had that individual citizen not engaged, not risked his life, many more people would have been murdered that day. now, congress in the wake of this, naturally asked what can we do. i can tell you what multiple survivors of sutherland springs said to me when i met with them. over and over again they volunteered they said the answer to this is not gun control. one woman, a mom whose son was in surgery, said, you know,

weigh all had our guns. we just left them in the car. we left them in the car out of respect for the churchment she said if any one of us brought our guns in, this mad man would have been stopped. the answer i believe is not in restricting law-abiding citizens. law-abiding citizens like steven whose heroism saved lives that day. the answer instead is stopping criminals and mad men from getting guns. and the thing that is infuriating is this shooter it was illegal for this shooter to have a firearm. existing federal law it was illegal. and the reason he had a firearm is the federal government screwed up. in 2013, chairman grassley and i joined together in introducing legislation, grassley cruz voted on the floor of the senate and got the most bipartisan votes of any of the comprehensive legislation voted on.

majority of the senate voted 52-48. nine democrats voted for. it directed the federal agencies go through, review criminal convictions and get them in the nicks database. directed the attorney general make sure the agencies have complied. if it had passed the air force would have got this and report td to the database. also the department of justice prosecute the felons and fugitives who try to buy firearms. stop ignoring these as paperwork offenses. if a felon comes in and lies and tries to illegally buy a firearm p, put them in jail. in april of 2016, this shooter went into ha academy, lied on the form, purchased a gun, and if grassley cruz had passed he should have been prosecuted, put in jail, and if he was in a federal jail, he never would have murdered anyone in sutherland springs. we need to stop criminals from getting guns. >> thank you, my colleagues. will the four people on the

first panel come fort. and before you sit down. i with like to enter an oath, and then i'll introduce you. do you each -- i'll wait a minute. do you each affirm that the testimony you are about to give before the committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god? >> we do. >> each have affirmed. please be seated. and i would like to introduce you before you testify. we have dr. heather wilson, the 24th secretary of the air force. hence responsible for the affairs of that department, including organizing training, equipment, and providing for welfare of nearly 660 active duty guard, reserve, and civilian forces.

dr. wilson graduate of the air force academy. dr. from university of oxford. this was followed by distinguished career in the united states air force. thank you for serving your country in that capacity. from '98 to 2002 she served as member of the u.s. house of representatives representing new mexico. mr. thomas e brandon has decades of experience in law enforcement. he currently serves as acting director of the bureau of alcohol tobacco and firearms and explosives. atf for short. been at the agency since '89. mr. brandon has been part of the senior leadership at atf since 2011 when he was selected as deputy to director while serving as special agent in charge of

phoenix field office. throughout his time at atf also served as chief of the national a cathedral academy as well as a number of other positions. mr. douglas lynde which is serves as assistant director for the fbi, criminal justice information service division. the arm of the fbi that oversees nicks program. he has been in his position since march 2017. he's also been with the fbi since joining as special agent in '97. his experience in the fbi has taken him all over the world, including being a member of the rapid deployment team in africa, legal london, and supervisor middle east unit of international terrorism operation, and counterterrorism section. mr. glen fine is the acting inspector general for the department of defense. a role he has held since january

10, 2016. in this position he's responsible for detecting waste, fraud and abuse as well as promoting accountability for the entire department of defense. prior to being active inspector, acting inspector general, mr. fine was named as the department of defense principle deputy inspector general june 1st, 2014. and we all know him because he previously has served as inspector general, doj, for 11 years. i think i didn't introduce you this way, but i think we'll go dr. wilson, brandon, fine, and then lindquist, anth then your entire statement will be put in the record. and five minutes. i never cut anyone off at five minutes, but when you see the red light go on try to summarize. thank you. dr. wilson. >> thank you, mr. chairman, my full statement will be in the record but i would like to

summarize a few remarks to open. what happened in sutherland springs, was absolutely awful. a mass murder of people gathered together to pray. why? it was clear very early that mr. kelly's criminal history was not reported, and it should have been. our review has determined that the breakdown in reporting was not limited to this case and it was not limited to this detachment. the actions that we have taken since then include steps to add

steps to case management for both the office of special investigations and also the air force security forces so that cases cannot be closed just at the local detachment, that higher headquarters must also check off that fingerprint records have been filed. a third check has been added that when the file is actually archived, the file is checked again to make sure that the fingerprints have been put on record. we've also added a requirement that the person working the case not only has to file the fingerprints, they have to check the database to ensure that the fingerprints have been properly received by the database and print-out a screen shot of that record and file it in the air

force records. the air force has updated its training requirements. we had a world wide standdown for all offices for training and reminding of what the requirements are on d.o.d. and air force policy. over the next month, the security forces in the air force squadron by squadron are doing similar training. after the 2015 report shows that there were problems with respect to reporting criminal information to the federal databases, a number of steps were taken particularly by air force osi to correct deficiencies. they were insufficient. one of the things that was not done was a complete retroactive

review in the database maintained by the air force to ensure that previous cases that had not been properly reported were properly reported. we have set up two task forces of 30 people each to go through the air force database that goes back to 2002 to ensure that any case that was not properly reported at the time is properly reported. i want to thank the fbi and the department of justice for working with us and ensuring we can make those updates expeditiously. there are some things that i cannot say today and i know many of you may have questions about accountability or disciplinary action.

we have also directed a 30-day review by the chief data officer

of the united states air force. finally, we have asked the inspector general not to just look at reporting in this way, but what other kinds of reports are required and to make sure we are complying with those as well. i look forward to answering your questions.

>> thank you, madam secretary. although we are a small agency, we embrace the challenge of our mission and strive to be the best partner possible to our colleagues, delivering investigative and technical experience.

but the goal of mimicking automatic fire. some shooters are able to accomplish this technique without using any device or accessory. in 2008 atf received a series of classification requests for bump stock devices. we have classified most of these to be a firearm accessory not subject to regulation either because the devices shot only one bullet or pull of the trigger or the devices did not appear to initiate a full automatic firing cycle.

in the aftermath of the tragedy in las vegas, members of congress, including many on this committee and the general public have asked atf to reexamine its past decisions on bump stocks to determine whether existing federal law can be interpreted to include these type of devices within the definition of machine gun. atf and the department of justice have undertaken a review of options. i have directed atf to initiate the process of promulgating a federal regulation interpreting the definition of machine gun to clarify whether certain bump stock devices fall within that investigation. atf has initiated that process by submitting an advance notice of proposed rule making to the office of management and budget. publication of this anprm will provide the public and the industry to submit comments that will help inform atf's decision regarding further steps in the

rule making process. i fully appreciate the desire of the public and congress that this process move quickly. i assure the committee that atf will work tirelessly to complete the process as soon as possible. i am honored to represent atf today and to share this panel with secretary wilson, acting inspector general fine. thank you. >> thank you, mr. brandon. now glenn fein. >> thank you for inviting me to testify about the d.o.d.'s reviews regarding the submission of criminal history for entry into databases.

i have appeared before this committee in a prior capacity. today i appear before you again in a different capacity as the head of the d.o.d. oig which i have led since january 2016. unfortunately this hearing arises from the tragic events of november 5th, 2017 when an individual devin kelly killed 24 at the baptist church. at the request of the secretary of defense, the oig agreed to investigate what happened with regard to his criminal history records. also to review more broadly the policies, practices and procedures regarding when appropriate information is submitted by d.o.d. law enforcement agencies for entry into fbi databases. the oig has begun that investigation and review. we have previously performed several reviews that found serious deficiencies in the

d.o.d. submission of required criminal history information to the fbi. our first review in 1997 found significant gaps in the military service's compliance with the requirement to submit criminal history data to the fbi. in addition, other previous d.o.d. oig evaluations examined the handling of specific types of investigations by military service law enforcement organizations such as sexual assault investigations with the handling of specific types of evidence, such as dna. in these reports the d.o.d. also found that the services were not consistently submitting required data from current investigations to the fbi. in 2015 the d.o.d. completed another investigation and again found noncompliance by the military services in their submission of fingerprint and final disposition reports to the fbi. in february 2017, the oig opened up a review to determine whether

they were submitting reports for its members convicted of qualifying offenses. we reviewed these submissions from the period. in our report which we issued yesterday we determined that military services still did not consistently submit fingerprint cards and final disposition reports as required. overall of the 2500 fingerprint cards required to be submitted, 601 or 24% were not submitted. of the final disposition reports required to be submitted, 780 or 31% were not submitted.

the results differed by service. the army, navy and marines failed to submit many such fingerprint cards and final disposition reports. the air force performed better but still had many missing fingerprint cards and final disposition reports. our report made a series of specific recommendations to address these serious deficiencies and ensure that all reports and fingerprint cards be submitted as desired. also to ensure that such compliance is included in military service inspector general inspections. finally, we recommended that the d.o.d. also ensure that other required investigative and criminal history information such as criminal incident data and dna samples has been submitted for inclusion in fbi databases. the secretaries of the army, navy and air force, the deputy chief management officer and the undersecretary of defense for intelligence all concurred with our investigations. in conclusion, the d.o.d. oig has repeatedly found deficiencies of military services submission of required fingerprints, final disposition reports and other criminal history information to the fbi.

we intend to follow up with these issues to ensure the d.o.d. submits all information to the fbi. that concludes my statement and i look forward to answering any questions. >> thank you, mr. fine. mr. lundquist. >> i thank you for this opportunity to appear before you to discuss the fbi's national instant criminal background check system or nics. the brady handgun act of 1993 requires ffls to use the nics to determine whether the firearm transfer would violate state or federal laws.

they conduct a search of available records in three national databases. these national databases are the ncic which contains information on one person's protection orders. the interstate identification index which accesses criminal history records and the nic's indices. it includes individuals have have been determined to be federally prohibited from receiving a firearm when information may not be available through databases. since 2010, the nics as experienced a steady increase in the volume of background checks. the last three years have been record setting. this past black friday was the highest volume day in history. nics processed over 200,000 transactions. an increase of 17,000 over the most recent single day report just last year.

even with the record numbers the staff continues to have a determination rate of 98%. by placing records in the triple i or ncic, the information is there for all criminal justice purposes not just firearm eligibility checks. to encourage and increase the submission of records, the program has implemented an array of outreach and education initiatives. on the federal side, the fbi continues to work with federal

agencies to help identify and report relevant records and these efforts have led to a significant increase in the amount of information available to the nics. additionally, the fbi has also partnered with the u.s. courts to receive dispositions electronically for adjudicated individuals under federal supervision. another area of focus for the nics is improving the completeness of state, territorial, tribal and federal criminal history records contained in the iii. the division conducts teleconferences, provides presentations and holds meetings with state, territory, tribal and federal agencies to provide dispositions, challenges the partners may be having and developing ways to over come those challenges. every opportunity is taken to emphasize the national need for updated, timely dispositions and provide awareness on how to submit them. the fbi works proactively with our criminal justice colleagues to make resources and information available to agencies working to improve their disposition reporting. recently the attorney general directed the fbi to work with department of defense and atf to increase reporting to the nics. we look forward to accomplishing this important work. we all want to ensure that the nics has access to accurate and

complete information so it can do its job to protect the public and keep firearms away from those who should not have them. our fbi and state partners who use the nics every day to make firearms determinations take their work very seriously since they're aware of the potential consequences. our heart felt condolences go out to the victims of the shootings, including the most recent in las vegas and sutherland springs, texas. i thank the members of this committee and our american people and partners who have joined us as we discuss these matters today. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank all of you for staying within the time limits. we'll have five rounds of questions. i'm going to start with director brannon. your agency two days ago started the process of promulgating the regulation interpreting the definition of machine gun in the national firearms act and gun control act to clarify whether certain bump stock devices fall within that definition. can you confirm that atf has concluded that it now has the authority under existing law to regulate bump stocks?

>> mr. chairman, we're pursuing -- there's the possibility that it's possible as we go through the administrator's procedures act, being the first step is the advanced notice of proposed rule making, which is within omb. as i said in my statement. if that wasn't a possibility at the end, we wouldn't initiate this process. >> okay. many gun owners are concerned that a regulation restricting manufacture or sale of bump stocks could apply to other firearms or firearms accessories in common use. are you confident that the regulation if you move forward with the regulation can be written so that it addresses the bump stock issue separately but does not go beyond that? >> well, mr. chairman, thank you for the question. what i promise to you is that atf will follow the process of the administrative procedures act and the formal comments that we receive from the public and the industry members that we use

that information to go to the next step. so i can't promise anything other than to follow the rules of the apa and also to evaluate and categorize the comments that we receive. >> i think the answer to my next question is obvious but i'm going to ask it anyway. after you receive comments from your advanced notice of proposed rule making, is it possible that atf will conclude that it cannot regulate bump stocks. >> mr. chairman, i couldn't answer that question at this time until i receive the comments. >> secretary wilson, according to the most recent doj report, the air force security forces failed to properly report 60% of its cases to nics, whereas air force office of special investigations only failed to report 2%. can you please explain why that discrepancy exists and what steps you're taking to fix the problem? push the button. >> senator, there are two

elements of law enforcement in the united states air force, the office of special investigations, which generally investigates crimes that can be punishable for more than one year in prison and security forces, which are security force squadrons on an individual basis. they're organized differently. they have different responsibilities. my responsibility is to make sure that both of these law enforcement organizations comply. with respect to security forces, there are a number of things that we're doing, global training, making sure that every security forces office has electronic fingerprints capability. we're adding it in as a special interest item on the next air force inspector general inspections. and increased command interest and oversight. we've also promulgated new training for all security forces personnel on not only how to do the fingerprints, but how to file those fingerprints with the

national database. as i mentioned in my opening statement, we are looking at the database structure with our chief data officer to see if there is a better way to do this that's less manual. >> mr. brandon, bump stocks are not complicated devices. it's my understanding after study of it that it could be a piece of plastic, so bump stocks could be made by a 3-d printer in somebody's garage. if i'm correct on that, given the simplicity -- if i'm wrong, you can tell me, but given the simplicity of manufacturing these devices, how does atf propose to regulate them? >> well, mr. chairman, to the first part of your question with 3-d printing, there's been rapid advancements in that technology over the last few years. i would imagine that's possible. and as far as going forth with any regulation, again, i'm just going to go back that -- to adhere to the administrative procedures act, and we'll follow

that to the t. and go from there. but keep the committee informed. >> i've got three seconds left. so i can start my question. mr. fine, the inspector general for the department of defense recommended in 1997 and 2015 that d.o.d. needed to take steps to improve its nics reporting and to comply with federal law and d.o.d. regulations and yet in a report issued just two days ago it appears that in 2015-2016 31% of the d.o.d.

records were not being reported to the fbi. so why has the department of defense failed to do a better job? >> i think there's a variety of issues. i think there was, as secretary wilson talked about, inadequate training, inadequate verification. they didn't take these recommendations as seriously as they should have. there are a lot of people involved with this. they should have been more conscientious in making sure that everyone knew the requirements and complied with the requirements. there are steps that need to be taken, some of which secretary wilson has mentioned. but there needs to be focused attention on it, there need to be someone responsible for it and they need to have dedicated effort to make sure this is fixed service wide. >> senator feinstein, i'm going to call on you now. i'm going to step out for a minute. if i'm not back, would senator cornyn take over, as her five

minutes are up? thank you. go ahead. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and director brandon, i just want to thank you and all of your people. atf, i've learned over the past 25 years, has a very hard job. and i thank you and your people for doing it. when atf is given information that a prohibited person has failed a background check and is likely lied on the background check form -- and i'm talking about form 4473 -- what is the process, if any, by which fbi or atf alerts local law enforcement? first, senator feinstein, again, i appreciate your support to atf, and also your genuine concern for public safety. i realize half the victims from las vegas came from california, as i understand it. so i thank you for that. my understanding is with the fbi through their nics process, it's entered into ncic when someone doesn't pass and is denied. i would defer to my colleague,

assistant director lindquist, to answer that question regarding notifying local law enforcement. >> i will ask director lindquist right now. can you answer that question, sir? >> ma'am, if i can get back to you on that one, i will check to verify, but i believe it is entered in ncic. >> that's important to me. i just want you to know that. director lundquist, what is the main reason for the large numbers of domestic violence offenders adjudication records not being entered into the ncic files, the nics files or the iii files? the interstate identification index? is it that records are not submitted at all? and which states submit the most and the least records? or is it that records are often incomplete for the purpose of conducting a background check? >> ma'am, that's a multipart question. i will try and address those. it is difficult. right now we have about 4.5

million disqualifying mental health entries in the system. those are mainly housed in the -- >> go slow. you said you had 4.5 million disqualifying -- >> entries according to mental health issues in the nics indices. that's where they're housed. >> so these people who are mentally ill who apply? >> these are people who -- no, not necessarily. they are entered into our system in case there's an application. >> i see. >> so we have those records. those are people who have been adjudicated through the system. in other words a court order has put them into a mental health institution. and according to the brady act, those are the qualifications there. so we hold those. there are probably more records out there that we do not have and that's some of the challenges that we face on a regular basis. another part of your question, ma'am, what else is there that i failed to answer at this point?

>> well -- >> oh, main challenges, i think is what it was. it's a complicated law. particularly on the misdemeanor domestic violence as laid out in the brady act is a complicated matter. we have to have in the records ready for our examiners to go through is one that it has to be a act of violence or a threat and act of violence. there has to be a relationship established in the record for us to be able to process that. of course it has to be a misdemeanor at that point. otherwise it will be in the other indices of criminal matters. so it's a complicated matter and often times it's an incomplete record. >> how would you sort that out? >> education is the main way we try and do it, is to try and get that information out to the public. to the amess agencies that report that information to us. make them aware that we do need that information to be able to process this according to the

brady act. >> and you do do that? >> yes, ma'am, we do. >> okay. let me go back to director brandon. year after year, members of congress pushed for policy riders to limit atf's ability to make common sense updates to its definitions to require sellers to report suspicious transactions and to properly classify dangerous ammunition. can you describe how these riders impact the atf's ability to protect public safety. >> well, ma'am, thank you for that question. as you know, riders we're particularly sensitive to, because we can't use appropriated funds on things that would be ruled inappropriate. so we can't expend any energy or time or resources to do that, because we would be violating the law. >> so what impact have they had specifically, if you can. otherwise i'll ask you in writing. >> no, ma'am. i appreciate the questions. i can give probably a full some response to your written

request. >> why don't i give you a written request? i'm really interested in this. i've been here 25 years. i've watched it year after year after year. and i've seen your agency in a sense effectively crippled. i think we need to do something about that. i think i'm done. >> senator cornyn. >> mr. lind quist, let me try to summarize, the national crime information center is -- contains information from three databases. is that correct? >> not exactly, senator. it is -- what we're talking about, the nics system, what you're referring to, right. that's the system set up to enforce the brady act, to make sure we have the information available. one of the subsets is the national crime information center, ncic, which has active warrants and protection orders in it. >> it's not just convictions. it's actually people with restraining orders and protective orders and domestic

disputes and people with mental health commitments. where would those records be reflected, in the triple i? >> some of it. you've kind of covered the gamut of the three records that we check for background checks and weapons purchases. criminal history is in triple i. that is people that have been arrested and convicted of crimes. so that information is in triple i. ncic has information that is active wants and warrants. those can be protection orders as well. and the nics indices if it doesn't fit in either of the categories, it will go into the nics indices, specifically for a firearms purchase. >> that strikes me as pretty complicated. >> it seems that way at first. i've learned to work with this. the 18,000 law enforcement agencies nationwide, the backbone of the system that they use, the trooper or agent that has someone pulled over on the side of the road, the first thing they're checking is ncic

that system is there for their use to make sure they know who they're dealing with. are they actively wanted for a crime? and then they check -- oftentimes will check iii to find out if they have a criminal history. i want them to know and all of us want to support them to know they know who they're dealing with. that's the main purpose of the system. one of the ancillary uses is for our background checks for weapons purchases. >> is there anything that the federal government can do to a state that fails to upload mental health protective orders, criminal convictions into the nics background check system? >> that's a challenge, senator. to be frank with you. i know that's something you are all trying to address through legislation. it's something we're actively reviewing right now. >> the short answer is the federal government can't compel

the state to do it. >> that is correct. >> all we can do is incentivize the state to facilitate that. that's one of the problems we'd ran into with the virginia tech shooter who had been adjudicated mentally ill. which was a disqualifying event. but because they didn't upload that information, it wasn't available to the fbi under the nics background check information, correct? >> yes, sir. >> so we have two problems. secretary wilson talked about the military. mr. fine talked about the d.o.d. which is a huge gaping hole in the nics background check system. but we also have the challenge of dealing with the sovereign states and incentivizing them to provide that information. of course, that's part of what we're trying to do in our legislation is not only have the kind of accountability and disciplinary consequences potentially that secretary wilson talked about when a

federal official doesn't comply with federal law. but also we have the corresponding challenge of dealing with the state governments to incentivize them to upload the information. you know, after sandy hook and aurora, which were mentioned i think by senator feinstein, we tried to look at the mental health issues, and we provided additional tools to family members in the 21st century cures bill to try to help family members intercede when they know their own loved one is mentally ill, but is not compliant with doctors' orders, not receiving treatment. but it seems to me there is no clearer cause and effect between tragedy and the potential prevention of that tragedy than improving the background check system. but as you've described it, it's exceedingly complex because it's not only criminal convictions, it's domestic violence protective orders in divorce cases and custody disputes and

it's mental health commitments. we just simply have to do better. so secretary wilson, i know that you can't comment on the potential results of a pending investigation because of the issue of undue command influence in an investigation there. but what can -- setting this case aside, what can the military do? what can the d.o.d. do to make sure that our commanding officers, the people responsible for overseeing the people who actually implement this process in the air force and the department of defense actually do their job. is it possible for congress to make sure this has a negative impact if their commanding officer doesn't do their job, that they don't get promoted, that their career can be ended? i think we need to have some means of enforcing this, as you said, accountability and discipline. what would you suggest? >> one of the things that we have put in place is checks at

different levels of command so that it is more likely that if there is a failure to file a fingerprint card that the next level of command will be able to see it. as you close the case, you can't just close it at a local detachment. the regional commander has to look at and close that case and say, yes, this has been done. with respect to future accountability or how do we make sure this doesn't happen again and that the system is fixed, i think one of the most important things is making it a special interest item on the inspector general's investigations when we go out to command to do command reviews. and then within the next 12 months, the air force audit agency is going to audit to see are the results showing up from the actions we've taken. >> senator leahy? >> thank you, mr. chairman. this hearing is important. it doesn't begin to address all of the problems. i know i'm glad we're having it.

i held four hearings between 2013 and 2014 on gun violence. and the rest. we had a number of pieces of legislation, which passed the senate as a result of that. unfortunately, we haven't had any -- looked at this since. but one of the things we found out in those hearings, and i'll direct this to director brandon. no matter how tough our laws are, it's easy to evade them on gun shows, private seller online. or a gun show. we see criminals look to straw purchasers. we've seen people come to my state and elsewhere, buy guns and then go to criminal gangs. there's no background check. we can talk about tightening up our background check. it won't make any difference. i understand the straw purchaser armed san bernardino shooter couldn't be charged with firearms trafficking even though he knew the shooter was planning a terrorist attack, but he didn't know what specific attack. 14 people died. the legislation we have here

wouldn't close that loophole at all. i mean, i'm a gun owner. i've competed in shooting matches in college, helped pay my way through college. i actually have a pistol range at my home, as all liberal democrats do. [ laughter ] >> but the point i'm making, i believe these laws should be tightened. i know you worked on gun cases in the field for a number of years. what are some of the challenges bringing firearms trafficking charge? under 9248? >> senator leahy, thank you for your question. and, yeah, i'm a gun owner, too. i have often said i have friends that are democrats and republicans. i say raise your hands if you're in favor of gun violence. i never see a hand go up. and that's an american issue. to answer your question, on 924h, which would be knowingly transferring a firearm that would be a commission of a violent crime, or a drug-related crime. it is a harder element to prove.

you know, to your point, we have traditionally relied on the paper cases, trying to perfect firearms trafficking cases. so we use the appropriate laws you have given us and tried to enforce them to the best of our ability to reduce violent crime. and one of the charges i've put out across atf is sometimes cases are simple, sometimes they're complex. but they all should be good. and good means they have an impact on reducing gun violence. that's taking the statutes that you all have begin us and trying to do the best we can with them to go after what i call the two ts, the trigger puller and the trafficker. it's the person pulling the to answer your question, on 924h, which would be knowingly

transferring a firearm that would be a commission of a violent crime, or a drug-related crime. it is a harder element to prove. you know, to your point, we have traditionally relied on the paper cases, trying to perfect firearms trafficking cases. so we use the appropriate laws you have given us and tried to enforce them to the best of our ability to reduce violent crime. and one of the charges i've put out across atf is sometimes cases are simple, sometimes they're complex. but they all should be good. and good means they have an impact on reducing gun violence. that's taking the statutes that you all have begin us and trying to do the best we can with them to go after what i call the two ts, the trigger puller and the trafficker. it's the person pulling the trigger and shooting people and it's the person giving that trigger puller the gun. that's where we've been focusing

our efforts to reduce gun violence. >> let's talk about the laws that we have. the law is that you have to record the sales of guns entirely on paper. to go back to how that came through, those are saying, well, we have to do this because there's a conspiracy. if it's electronic, there would be a nationwide seizure of guns. and there are people including people in congress who actually believe that bologna. so we insist that gun sales be tracked exclusively on paper. the the atf has to search through boxes in a warehouse. good lord. if you have a recall on your car because there's something wrong with the brakes, it's all done electronically. but if you're going to go after a gun that kills people, better check it out on paper. this seems to me like a hell of a burden on law enforcement. >> it's the law. senator leahy. and like you said, senator feinstein. it's the law, and we comply with

it. >> senator kennedy. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the incidents that we have talked about today are tragedies and i don't want anything that i say today to be construed as undermining that fact. let me ask you, have you seen a lot of waste in government? have you seen a lot of stupidity in government? >> yes. >> can we agree that training is expensive but bad employees are more expensive. >> your mike isn't on. >> yeah. >> sorry. >> thank you. >> federal problems -- >> director lindquist, all things being equal, when it comes to the right to own a gun and whether to own a gun, who do you think is better able to make that decision, the people who are governing or the people who are governed? >> i would defer to this body for the fact that we are -- you are governing those that have elected you to do so. so it is representation. so we're trying to do that. we're trying to enact the laws that you all as a body have put

out there and we're trying to do that to the best of your ability. >> no disrespect but that was a nice dodge. let me offer a thought. there's some people in this world who are not confused and they're not sick and their conduct is not determined by the fact that their mother or father didn't love them enough. they're just plain damn bad. now, i don't know why that is. if i ever make it before the good lord, i'm going to ask him or her. when a radical islamic jihadist abducts a young girl and turns her into a sex slave, we are told not to judge the actions of all muslims by the conduct of one. do you agree with that? >> i have heard that, senator. i know that from my work in counter terrorism cases and working violent crime cases, most recently in el paso, texas, as the special agent in charge i've seen evil. i know what that is. >> but do you agree with my

statement? >> i have heard that, yes, sir. >> well, i agree with it. do you think it is appropriate to blame 90 million gun owners in america because of the actions of certain evil people? >> nobody is. >> sir, i know we're trying to enforce the system as it is written. >> i'm just asking yes or no. if you could. i'm sorry to be abrupt, but i've got other questions. if you don't want to answer, just tell me. now, i don't know why that is. if i ever make it before the good lord, i'm going to ask him or her. when a radical islamic jihadist abducts a young girl and turns her into a sex slave, we are told not to judge the actions of all muslims by the conduct of one. do you agree with that? >> i have heard that, senator. i know that from my work in counter terrorism cases and working violent crime cases, most recently in el paso, texas,

as the special agent in charge i've seen evil. i know what that is. >> but do you agree with my statement? >> i have heard that, yes, sir. >> well, i agree with it. do you think it is appropriate to blame 90 million gun owners in america because of the actions of certain evil people? >> nobody is. >> sir, i know we're trying to enforce the system as it is written. >> i'm just asking yes or no. if you could. i'm sorry to be abrupt, but i've got other questions. if you don't want to answer, just tell me. >> we are trying to enforce the laws as written, and you're right. 90% of the transactions we process are law-abiding citizens, and they get their weapons that they are entitled to have. >> all right. let me ask director brandon. have you ever heard the expression, "you can't fix stupid, but you can fire it"? >> no, sir, not until just you said it. >> would you agree with it? >> uh, without giving it deeper

thought, it sounds like a catchy phrase. [ laughter ] >> you're pretty good at dodging too. what do you think is the best way -- clearly some people within the state and federal bureaucracy who are supposed to report data to nics, are not doing it. surely you'll agree with me on that. >> sir, i believe that all the information could get to nics that is accurate and complete because any system -- >> all right. i understand. i get it. okay. let me try this way. what do you think is the best way to enforce the requirement this information be turned into nics, to turn to the bureaucracy at the state and federal level and say pretty please with sugar on top and we'll give you extra money if you do it? or how about we get out of la la

land and into the real world, and say, "here's a radical thought. if you don't do it, you're fired"? because nobody around here ever gets fired, madam secretary. >> what's that mean? >> i'm done. >> senator blumenthal. >> mr. chairman, with your permission i'm going to yield to senator whitehouse, because he has an obligation on the floor. >> senator whitehouse. >> thank you. i appreciate that courtesy. my questions are going to be for director brandon. let me just say that in my years as rhode island's u.s. attorney i just thought that the atf office there was terrific. you made big cases with a small office. you were low maintenance and high performance and it was terrific.

so i just want to express my appreciation to my colleagues from that office back then and to the atf generally now. >> if i may say, thank you for that, because right now there are men and women all around the country for atf serving warrants, high-risk warrants, i know they'll hear what you said and it will really help their morale. sincerely i say thank you. >> it's sincere on my part. we're here because of the general proposition that a database is only as good as the data that actually enters into it. if you search a database for data that's never been entered, it's going to fail. so this hearing is mostly about nics. i'd like to ask you a few questions about another one the nibm database for blits information. what is your view as the acting director of the atf as to how effective the collection is of data of crime guns, weapons and cartridges and bullets that goes into this system?

do you think we're operating effectively at catching the data so we aren't having the kind of data slips that in the nics system this hearing is about? is niben an example that we should use of better collection or is it an area where we need to provide a little bit of attention to make sure there aren't data gaps in that system, as well? >> thank you for the question, senator. and niban i've testified previously, stands for the nashl integrated ballistics network. where niban is working well, it's where the police chief establishes policy and also changes culture. culture will chew up policy all day long. it's quite effective. the reason it has been, we at atf actually took an assessment of ourselves and we turned it into a leads generator instead of a scientific confirmation.

as an example, i had the assistant chief of cincinnati pd came up to me at the international association of chiefs of police in san diego and said i have to stop and just want to compliment. we had a shooter shoot at our police headquarters, miss our officer. within 12 hours we emptied that casing that was left at the scene and it went through a national niban training center down in alabama. which we recently established two years ago now. within 24 hours we had a match to three other shootings. he said his detectives and the atf agent had three guys locked up in 72 hours. niban is quite effective. when it's properly policied -- >> it's lead to the arrest of serial carjackers, a triple murder, the murder of a police officer, significant gang arrests, it's opened cold cases. it's a valuable tool. my question is, and you can take it for the record because i know

this wasn't a specific focus of this hearing, but i'd love to get an answer on it. in the universe of data that should be coming into niban to populate that database so the searches like the one you described can be effective and generate those quick leads, of that universe of data that should be coming in, how much of it do you think now is? >> i'll say of the sites that we have that it has improved. i will get back to you. >> a question for the record, then. i appreciate your service, i appreciate your support for the niban program, and i appreciate its crime-solving capabilities. >> i totally agree. thank you, senator. >> senator tillis. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you all for being here today. mr. brandon, i want to go back to the timeline for looking at the regulations that could be promulgated regarding bump stocks. can you give me an idea for the

length of time this could take before you could promulgate a rule? if you determine at the end of the process you have the authority to do so? >> thank you for the question, senator. i was told that once the anprm would be approved from omb there would be a 30-day comment period. and that i don't want to guess, because we could have tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of response, and we have to look at each one and categorize that. so i would be happy to report back to the committee after that was announced to give a time frame to your question. >> but we are probably talking about months, though. >> yeah. >> it seems reasonable just based on the way apa normally plays out, the notice and public comment-gathering and review of the comments. i mean, this is a months'-long proposition minimally. do you think that's a fair characterization for me to make,

not you? >> yes, sir. >> it's an area -- and then you did respond, i think, to the chairman's question that the end result of this could be that perhaps you don't have the authority to regulate bump stocks. is that a possibility for what could occur after some months long review of this process? >> that is a possibility. >> so it raises a question about whether or not -- the apa is in place to allow rules to be promulgated to get public comment. but congress moves forwards sometimes more quickly and i think it's something we should all look at rather than wait several months and find out we have to act to specifically focus on the bump stock issue. secretary wilson, you mentioned in your opening testimony that there were some ten databases and manual processes that you're looking at as part of your investigation. is that within the air force or the whole of d.o.d. or a little bit of both?

>> senator, it's both. it's across four agencies, air force, d.o.d. and those at the fbi. >> as you're going through this investigation, you're looking at the specifics of what occurred recently in texas and how we put a gun in the hand of somebody who shouldn't have had one. are we doing a more wholistic view to find the systemic problems. and mr. fine, i'm going to lead into a question with you. it's one thing to take a look at who made mistakes, the individuals who made mistakes in this particular case. but there seems to be a number of other of these processes that we're going through that just thank god have not resulted in the kind of outcome that we saw in texas. where does your -- does your investigation focus on the specific matter, or are we looking more broadly about a lot of people, potentially not doing what they should be doing? >> senator, we found both a

problem at that local detachment but also a more systemic problem. our review has not just looked at the root causes in this particular case but also one of the systemic problems and things that need to be fixed. >> mr. fine, when we're looking at the whole of dod, there may be some rational basis for more than one database. i don't know that the nature of the database, how else they may be used. but have we done any work to make recommendations about how we consolidate, streamline and automate these processes? >> we have looked at that in general. there is enormous information technology systems within the d.o.d. there's an enormous number of databases even in the financial statements. there's differing systems. and that is a problem in the department of defense. there needs to be more standardization. there does need to be in our view a broader look at the systems. in this case in response to your question to secretary wilson, we are looking at the policies, practices and procedures all

throughout the department of defense, not just in the air force as secretary wilson was looking at. but in the army, the navy, the defense agencies. this is a critical problem all throughout. i would also say it's not only a problem in the department of defense. not only a problem in the state and local governments. i'm quite certain from my experience it's a problem in other federal agencies as well whether it's the department of homeland security or the treasury department, marshal service. we need to look at that, too. >> i actually think we should take a look at a whole of government with respect to this challenge, a whole of government approach. i will say in deference to senator kennedy, often times we're going to have people come before this committee and point at dumb that may be going on in an agency or bad decisions. but my guess is some of the promulgation of these databases and processes relate to dumb past decisions of congress that have not properly funded or instructed the whole of government or the dod to modernize. and i think we all need to

recognize that there are some things that we need to do to properly resource and properly focus the agencies. and we own that problem. it's not something you can fix. and the majority of the people who are working in the agencies. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator coons. >> i'll defer to senator blumenthal. >> thank you. >> i want to express my thanks to you and the ranking member for holding this very, very important hearing. and my colleagues from nevada and texas for their very heartfelt and moving statements. i can tell them as we approach the fifth anniversary of sandy hook that they will continue to look in the eye the families and loved ones of victims who died in those massacres for years to come and feel the same sense of heartbreak and grief. but also the families and loved ones of victims of gun violence who die one by one in our communities, on our streets, in

neighborhoods across the country and every community in this country. 90 every day still as a result of gun violence. and that's why i want to thank particularly the groups that are represented here today and the individuals who have come because they reflect and represent the victims across the country who know from their personal experience the toll that gun violence takes and how preventible, truly preventible it is. and that's why i have joined with senator cornyn and others on the nics fix legislation, with senator feinstein on bump stock legislation, but also generally to extend background

checks to purchases that are uncovered now, 40% or more of all gun sales around the country as well as other measures, these are just the beginning that can make our neighborhoods and streets safer. mr. lindquist, would you agree with me that the state reporting of convictions and other dispositions is abjectly inadequate currently? >> it is lacking, yes, senator. >> and something should be done immediately and urgently to fix a broken reporting system, would you agree? >> there are fixes that need to happen. there are many states that are doing what they're required to do and entering these dispositions and final adjudications in the system and that's very helpful to us. and the law enforcement

community. >> how many states are failing? >> there are a number. i don't have the exact number in front of me. >> would you agree with me that it, in fact, is a majority of states? >> i don't know if it's a majority of states by number. it might be a majority representative of the population. >> in one way or another it's putting people in danger. correct? >> yes, sir, it is. >> and it's putting law enforcement in danger. >> yes, sir, it is. >> they are the ones who as often as ordinary citizens are at the other end of the gun facing them who should be barred from having it. >> that's correct. >> has department of justice as far as you know taken a position on the nics fix legislative proposal? >> i don't believe we have as yet. we are still looking at it. >> would you personally agree that it should be passed? >> i haven't read the entire thing but as i see it it has a lot of benefits to it. >> thank you.

mr. fine, i am struck by the failure of the department of defense to comply with the law year after year and after repeated evaluations. do you have any explanation for it? >> i think it's a variety of factors. i think it's inadequate training, lack of verification, the fact that they didn't make this an item on their inspections. what gets inspected gets done. i think it's a problem with people moving on and not taking responsibility, but there's really no excuse for it. it should have happened. >> your report, as i understand it, says that the department of defense should go back to the years 2015-2016 to make sure that convictions are entered. >> we say go back all the way back 20 years to at least 1998. we looked at 2015 and 2016 and found significant problems. we think there are problems all

the way back and we recommend in our report they go back at least to 1998, when the instruction required them to do it. >> i agree. and would you agree also that there should be greater accountability, namely stern and strict discipline for the failure to do adequate reporting? >> i do believe accountability should occur. i think there has to be first training, verification and make sure people know their responsibilities. and if they don't do it, when that happens, there ought to be accountability. >> one last question for secretary wilson. would you agree, secretary wilson, that the uniform code of military justice should be amended to include a specific article on domestic violence? in other words, specific punishment as a felony for domestic violence under the ucmj? >> senator, currently domestic violence is under article 128, as you know, there is a proposed

revision to the ucmj manual for court-martial that have enhanced penalties for assault against a family. i think that has been published in the code of federal regulations and is pending. so one of the questions still in my mind is whether we actually need to change the statute, or whether the enhanced penalty is sufficient. >> would you agree with me that specifying an article on the ucmj on domestic violence would send a message to our military men and women, the greatest and most dedicated in the world, that domestic violence simply will not be tolerated? >> senator, it does send a message. i would like to work with you on some things our attorneys have identified as potential unintended consequences, as well, and i would would be glad to work with you on that. >> i would be glad to work with you, and i hope you'll support the proposal. >> senator coons. >> i'd like to thank the panel. i'd like to thank everyone who has come here today to remind us

of the millions of families across our country who have been touched in some way by gun violence. i'm from the small city of wilmington in delaware. we are currently struggling with a spate of gun violence that exceeds any previous records. we are a small city but we've had 160 shooting incidents so far this year and 30 homicide victims and 191 shooting victims. we have looked to and received great assistance from atf and fbi. our struggling with a community with how to address this ongoing wave of violence. i think we're just one small window into what we see nationally. the mass shooting incidents that were described early on by the senators from nevada and texas, and then the routine tragically daily gun violence incidents that plague our whole country. and i am hopeful we can make some bipartisan progress. that's why i've co sponsored senator cornyn's bill and

senator feinstein's bill on bump stocks. i want to pursue a line of questioning if i might, mr. lindquist, that senator feinstein began earlier about nics denials. it is a crime to try and buy a firearm if the law prohibits you from having one. right? both federally and in many states. >> yes, sir. >> how many of these try and buy crimes are prosecuted every year federally do you think? >> i don't know the answer to that, senator. >> you would agree with me that if a person tries to buy a firearm but is denied because of a failed background check, they are likely to go somewhere else to try and get a gun. >> that's possible. >> possible or likely? >> i don't know the answer to that. it's possible. >> it certainly would be a good predictor. that someone is in the market for a weapon, if they try and are denied. >> it can be a predictor, yes, sir. >> so wouldn't it be helpful to state and local law enforcement, to federal law enforcement, if they knew about that person and their illegal attempt to gain a

weapon, even though being a person prohibited, before they succeed in getting a gun another way? >> it can be helpful, yes, sir. >> well, in my home community, it's the sort of thing i'm hoping we can find a bipartisan path towards solving. a recent fbi report found that last year alone, there were 4,000 instances where individuals were permitted to purchase a firearm despite their not being cleared by the background check process. that's a ten-year high, if i understand correctly. why is the number of nics failures increasing so much? >> senator, i don't know the exact reasons for that. my supposition is the fact that the number of background checks have increased astronomically. since 2010, we had 14 million background checks in the nics system. year was the record number. that is nearly double in that timeframe. it's a tremendous strain for those people who do that work

for the fbi and the point of contact states across the nation. the three-day background check, the three business days we're allowed under the brady act, that sometimes gets stretched with those volumes like that. that's the only reason i can think of off the top of my head that would lead to those purchases being allowed. in other words, the firearms dealer, according to the brady act, after three business days and we have not gotten back to them because we have asked the jurisdiction for further information, that they can sell that firearm according to the brady act. so that firearm can be sold. at that point, if we get the disqualifying information, we immediately get that back out. and that's why those 4,000 weapons were retrieved at that point. >> if i might, mr. brandon, requests by the fbi to recover an an lawful firearm are particularly dangerous. we're asking an atf agent to confront a person prohibited, who is known to now possess one or more weapons. would you agree that these are particularly dangerous for law enforcement officials? >> senator coons, thanks for the

question. and my executive team and i in 2015 made it a priority of retrieving delayed denials. in fact, i have a monthly briefing, a monitored case briefing, where we track every division, and we see how it's trending up and down. lindquist's comment about the volume of sales, you'll have more people delayed denial. i will shed some light on it. it may be the perception that all these people are violent felons. they're prohibited and so forth. and sometimes, though, it will come back that they're not prohibited. so we have to do a thorough investigation, but my affirming to you, senator, that it's a priority to atf, and we own it. and so i have an expression. it's pure atf, one atf, working on pure atf, and delayed denials get our full attention. >> it seems to me if i might in closing say, this is an area where i think i hope there's broad bipartisan agreement that

we should be providing the resources you need. in fbi and atf and state and local law enforcement to make sure that people who should not have access to firearms under our current laws don't. that we are coordinating and reporting between federal agencies and state and local law enforcement, and in particular, that where someone who is prohibited is denied an opportunity to purchase a firearm, that that information is shared in a way that is appropriate and actionable, because the best way to stop gun violence is to make sure that those who under our current law are not allowed to have firearms do not easily get access to them. so thank you very much for your testimony. thank you, mr. chairman, ranking member, for today's hearing. i think this is an important issue for us to work on. >> senator hirono. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i thank all the panelists for coming today. i, along with many of my colleagues, have supported reasonable measures to prevent the ongoing gun violence in our country, including the

restricting or banning of bump stocks, assault weapons, high-capacity magazines. i would like to follow up on a question that was asked by senator blumenthal because i do have a bill that the department of defense is not objecting to, that would close the loophole in reporting to the nics system. that has to do with the fact that in 2012, devin kelley, who was the texas church shooter, had been convicted in a general court-martial on assault charges. there is no specific charge in the ucmj for domestic violence in the ucmj, so my bill, and this is for secretary wilson and mr. fine, my bill will close that loophole by making a very specific charge, not just under a general assault charge. so do you think that such a specific charge for domestic violence, that would include dating partners, do you agree

that a measure like that would bring clarity to the reporting process? secretary wilson, mr. fine. >> senator, this case should have been reported and was not. the disposition of this case is actually clearly marked as a crime of domestic violence. so it should have been reported and was not. with respect to how it would help or hurt the reporting and databases, i'm afraid i can't answer that question for you now. i would be happy to take it and look at the legislation and take the question for the record. >> well, the fact that it should have been reported but it was not i think can be cleared up if there is a charge, a very specific charge for domestic violence, and there is no such specific charge. you can categorize or describe a general assault charge as involving domestic violence, but there is no separate charge. i think that would be a very reasonable way to clarify that

situation. mr. fine, would you like to add? >> i haven't looked at this in detail, but it seems to me there's a disconnect between the qualifying offenses in uniform code of military justice and the disqualifying offenses for obtaining a firearm, which does prevent people who have committed a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence from obtaining a weapon. there is no specific charge in the uniform code of military justice for assault or crime of domestic violence. so that may be something that could insure that those crimes are more accurately coded, noted and provided to nics. on first blush, it does seem to be a reasonable step that could help because we have seen, and we're going to analyze this, but we have seen not many crimes of domestic violence are reported as such. they're reported in a general category of assault. that could be a problem. >> that is my point exactly. that if there is a specific

charge then, whoever is bringing the charge has to think about it and to make a determination. and that is not left to someone down the line trying to, you know, describe what constitutes a charge of assault. so as i said, the department of defense has indicated to me that they would not object to such a clarification. there is a connection between domestic violence and gun violence, and for all of the panelists, why is it important that those convicted of domestic violence crimes be prevented from owning a firearm? would you care to opine? any of you. you acknowledge there is generally a connection between domestic violence and gun violence? there are many studies to that effect. >> ma'am, i'll take the question. you know, if we have information that someone has a firearm and they have a conviction for

domestic violence, and that becomes a priority to us because, again, it shows that usually a close partner or a loved one could be at danger, and our whole job is to prevent that, to prevent gun violence from happening. >> so is that a priority for the military also? mr. fine? >> it is. domestic violence, sexual assault, any kind of assault is a priority for the military. it's an issue that needs to be addressed and addressed fully. >> there are a lot of members of the military who do own weapons. so i would think that it would be a very high priority that should there be any kind of an assault in the background of these individuals that you are fully apprised of the need to protect the potential victims. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i have one question. senator blumenthal has two questions, and then we'll be

done with this panel. i'm going to ask mr. lindquist and mr. fine, when dod inspector general issued a report in 2015 showing that the department of defense had serious nics reporting issues, what did the obama administration do in response? either one of you. start out, and then both of you answer it. >> well, i don't know what the obama administration did. we made the recommendations to the services, and it's quite clear that the services did not take appropriate action to follow up on those recommendations. >> mr. lindquist. >> i don't have that answer in front of me, senator. i came into office here in april, so i didn't look back that far to see what was taking place there. >> would you answer in writing? >> we can, yes, sir. >> then i have two questions i'm going to submit to the panel for answer in writing. senator blumenthal. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i will be very brief because we have a panel afterward, but i would like to pursue questions in writing with all of you

subsequent to this hearing. let me just say, in listening to the testimony from this panel, an excellent panel this morning, i am reminded of all of the work that i have done and i know other former u.s. attorneys and attorney general have done with the fbi and atf, and i just want to express my thanks to you and to the men and women who are out there every day literally putting their lives on the line. i can remember well one of the highlights of my service as u.s. attorney which was a tile that i did with the atf involving an agent who worked undercover at extraordinary personal danger to himself. and i think americans should be extraordinarily grateful for your service and sacrifice.

mr. brandon, i want to ask you a quick question about this advanced notice, anticipated notice of rule making. you have been asked about the time that could be taken by this process. it could be months. but it could be years because there could well be a challenge after the rule if there is a rule is in fact promulgated, correct? >> that would be true, sir. >> there would be a challenge in court, and in fact, the challenge in court could use the previous statements that have been made by the atf. i have one in front of me dated june 7th, 2010. i ask it be made part of the record. >> without objection. >> which says about the bump stocks that they're not

regulated as a firearm under the gun control act for the national firearm act because they are accessories. there are a number of statements like this one, correct? >> correct. >> in fact, you, i think, personally told a meeting in philadelphia very recently that federal law to bar bump stocks would probably require a new statute to be effective. correct? i'm not quoting directly, but i think you said in effect that present law doesn't cover them. >> senator, thank you for the question. if i recall correctly, what i was saying was, you know, they're lawful. you know, however, that i have asked for attorneys outside of atf to take a fresh look at it because i took seriously the letters i received from the senators and from the congress

men and women on both sides to keep an eye, an open mind and to do something. those lives lost really hit everybody hard. and so with whatever capacity we had with atf that we kept an open mind to do whatever we could do, and that's this advanced notice of proposed rulemaking. i'm not in the legislative branch to make a law, but whatever we could do, and to the people sitting behind here, i have been at scenes with gun violence. you know, and throughout my career as an atf agent, and it hits hard. so i just take -- to answer your question, whatever we could do, trying to do. >> and i appreciate that, sir. and i hope this body will act more quickly than the months or years that might be taken for you to do what you would like to do to better product the public, and i thank you for your sincere desire to do so.

thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. thanks to the panel, and i think we give about a week for people to submit questions. so since there's a lot of absenteeism, maybe expect questions from people that weren't here. thank you all very much. while they're going, would the other panel please hurry and come? and i'm going to let you sit down. and while you're -- and while you're being seated, i'm going to introduce you to save time. on october 1st, ms. gooze, if i'm pronouncing your name right, was working at the route 91 harvest country music festful when stephen paddock began firing on the festival from the 32nd floor mandalay bay hotel.

when the firing began, this witness did not flee, instead helped move injured individuals out of harm's way. she then helped comfort a fatally wounded man. ms. gooze stayed with the man for hours after the shooting, notifying and comforting friends and loved ones. mr. david slayton, the administrative director of the texas courts, been in that position since 2012. in this role, mr. slayton is responsible for directing the operations of the office of court administration and serves as the director of the texas judicial council and our organization task would continually study the organization procedure of texas courts and methods of improvement. mr. slayton is past president of the national association of

court management and was formerly secretary on the board of directors of the texas association for drug court professionals. he has worked in the texas judicial branch in various roles since '98. mr. halbrook is a senior fellow at the independent institute, a think tank based in oakland, california. he's also taught legal and political philosophy at george mason, howard university, and tuskegee institute. mr. hallbrook has argued cases before the supreme court author of several books on second amendment and gun control. one of those books is titled, "the founder's second amendments, origins of the right to bear arms" and another one that every man be armed, the evolution of the constitutional

rights. his writings have appeared in several legal journals. chief jay thomas manger has been chief of police in montgomery county, maryland, since february 2004. he began his law enforcement career in 1977, fairfax county virginia police department, ultimately becoming chief of police in '98. during his distinguished career in law enforcement, chief manger has received multiple awards, including the james s. brady law enforcement award, the community champion award for law enforcement, community champion award for youth leadership foundation, and montgomery county victims' rights foundation public safety award. additionally this chief is currently the president of the major cities chief association,

and he also knows very well the chief of police of cedar rapids, iowa, my home state. david kopel is the research director at the independence institute in colorado. an associate policy analyst for cato, and the adjunct professor of constitutional law, denver university, sterms college of law. author of several books of second amendment. one entitled "truth about gun control." and no more whackoes. what's wrong with federal law enforcement and how to fix it. mr. kopel has also been featured on national media programs and his work has been published in several legal journings. we're going to go in the same way i introdruuced you. ms. gooze, is that how you pronounce your name? please proceed.

>> members of the committee, thank you so much for inviting me to speak here today. my name is heather gooze, on october 1st, 2017 i was in las vegas, nevada. also there were christine carrier and heather salen. from las vegas and reno, who are here sitting behind me today. before i tell my story, i feel i need to disclose something to the committee. i am not someone who is anti-gun. i'm very pro second amendment. but i support senator feinstein's bill to ban bump stocks. these are not for hunting, they're not for target practice. they are for hurting people. and they have no place in our general society. i hope my story will make you understand why. the three-day country music festival going on for four years. this was my second year landing a highly coveted bartending job. and my first year at the house of blues. one of the main bars right in the midst of the festival grounds. people come from all over the world for this event. at 10:00 p.m. that night, the first round of gunshots peppered the festival grounds.

i remember hearing a loud noise and thinking it's just feedback from the speakers or maybe fireworks. people were still dancing. then everyone started to rush in all directions, trampling the bar and pushing through the back doors. at first i thought a group was trying to storm the vip area above the bar until i started to hear the screams. shooter, gun, help me. this was followed by a second round of gunshots, there were people covered with blood all over their bodies. my own night of terror continued with me helping frightened concertgoers go through the back doors, hoping they would be safe. as people tried to hoist others over the fence out back i joined 20 others to push the fence over so they could run out. i went to the vip to check on the other bartenders, that's when another set of gunshots rang out directly in front of my bar. my co-worker ryan was only spared by hiding behind an atm. he saved another bartender in the process by pulling her behind the atm. the woman next to them got hit by the raining bullets.

i then ran down the stairs and got pulled under the bathroom trailers. i had a moment to call my mom and sister. i told them both that they're going to hear really scary things on the news and that most of it was true, but that for now, i was okay. the four set of shots starting pinging off the metal around us. we tried to stay as quiet as possible. throughout this entire ordeal, at any point i expected to look up and see a gunman ready to shoot. after that round of gunfire, everyone scrambled for the gate. but for whatever reason, i ran back to the bar. the first thing i saw was a woman bleeding down her leg who said it hurt. i asked if she had fallen and she said no. i looked down and saw the first bullet holes. i asked a man running through the bar to help carry her out back. but then someone else came in, dragging a man by his fingers he had been hit in the thigh and then broken his leg falling. i grabbed an arm and helped pull him through and behind the bar. at this point, there were six to

eight already injured there. as bodies and wounded continued to grow i ran to the medic's tent for help. every two minutes somebody else was running in. one group carrying a girl shot in the back. i helped adjust her on a route 91 banner and found out after looking at pictures that girl hadn't made it. i ran back and told everyone help was on the way. strangers started to pull up in trucks and cars, volunteering to drive the injured to the hospital while we carried them to the makeshift ambulances. at one point i got called over to hold a jean jacket on a victim's head to stop the bleeding. we shouted for him to wake up. he was breathing but he wasn't conscious. as a car pulled up to load the injured, the jacket fell and i was left plugging the hole in the victim's head with my bare fingers. the man's name was chris, he died the next day. i since found out he was victim chris hassen come. then i met the victim who would become a main part of my story. laid on a maintenance ladder being used as a makeshift stretcher. three men called me over.

to grab the ladder's corner. i held it with one hand and touched his hand and fingers lightly touched mine. when the group reached the sidewalk area deemed safe from whomever was shooting, they put the ladder down. the man asked if i was okay as i was covered in chris's blood, i told them it wasn't my blood. they ran back to the festival grounds to continue helping and i kept holding this unmanned names hand and then it stop holding mine. i shook him. strangers checked his chest, there was nothing we can do. they asked how they could help, but what could you say? he was now doa. someone draped a t-shirt over his face and tablecloth and for some strange reason i felt compelled to stay and sit with the body. i felt attached. i saw other bodies lying alone and didn't want this man to be left alone. i was still holding his hand. about an hour later his phone rang and i answered. the person on the other end of the line asked, who is this? why are you answering my friend's phone. i asked them, who are you? where are you calling from?

who are you calling? the other voice said, i'm trying to reach jordan mceldoor, british colombia maple ridge. i had to tell them jordan had died. i told them to call his parents. pulling out jordan's wallet, i took a picture of his i.d. and sent it to everybody on his facebook friend list. 911, do you know this man? then came a call from his mom, and i found out his girlfriend amber was also at the festival. we got a hold of her and she asked, is he okay? and i said no. she asked if he got shot, and i said yes. he's breathing right? i said, amber he's not breathing, he's dead. she said all are you sure? he's the love of my life. i said he's gone. i made a promise i would stay by jordan no matter what so amber would know when the emergency personnel took him away. i told her i wouldn't leave his side because at that point, there were only two of us there who knew who he was. i called jordan's mom back and she asked if jordan was okay and i realized we never told her he had passed.

i had to tell her that he had died. i had to tell her from a complete stranger in another country that her only child had been murdered. i kept my promise not to leave jordan's side, staying with him for over four hours during that night. when police and emergency personnel arrived, i told them about jordan and i said i promise not to leave until i knew they had his girlfriend. it was about 3:30 in the morning when the police finally got a hold of amber and got her out of lockdown. covered in blood, exhausted and crying, i made it home still not believing or understanding what had just happened. when i asked myself in the days following why i stayed with a stranger's body, i could only answer i hope someone would do the same for me. i didn't want jordan to be a john doe his death mattered and i wanted him to be remembered. i don't know why i didn't run. i had more than one opportunity. i still don't know. i'm not that strong.

i'm not that special. i'm not a hero or an angel, but something wouldn't let me run that night and something compelled me to help chris and jordan and others whose names i still don't even know. as i mentioned a moment ago, i may have stayed because i hoped someone would do the same for me. i did it because i wouldn't want to be forgotten. but the truth is that none of us want to be forgotten and i ask the committee not forget all of the lives that were lost that day, all of the lives affected that day. and all of the lives that could be affected in the future. thank you. >> thank you, you're a brave person. mr. slayton. >> chairman grassley, ranking member feinstein and senators, thank you for allowing me to testify today on state court reporting to nics. my name is david slayton and i'm testifying on behalf of the state court administrators. the current administrator of the texas court administration. the principal core administrative officer for each state and territory dedicated to the improvement of state court

systems. the state court administrators are responsible for implementing policy and programs for the state judicial systems. state courts handle 98% of all judicial proceedings in the country. i'd like to share with you about texas' reporting to nics. in texas, information about arrests and prosecutions for various criminal offenses are entered by law enforcement, jails, prosecutors, and courts into the criminal justice information system or cjis. those entries populate the ncic and iii system previously mentioned. information about mental health disqualifiers are submitted by court clerks. and forwarded to the nics database. to be clear, ensuring records are accurately and promptly entered in the databases takes concerted effort by those in the system. this is due to the complexity of the justice system and the various stakeholders who must contribute records. many are paper based and need to be converted to an electronic

database. some states, including texas do not have a single auto mated computer system that maintains the records and may require automation upgrades and adoption of state legislation to fully comply with the nics standards. as you know, the nics database is only as good as the records it contains and we feel texas has made great strides in reporting the mental health and violence disqualifiers to it. this is in large part due to funding received from the federal government that enabled fex to concentrate efforts on improving records available to nics. in fiscal years 2012 and 2013, the texas office of court administration, ota, received a nics act record improvement grant from the united states department of justice to develop a plan for improving nics reporting and assist clerks in reviewing cases to identify mental health records to be reported. nics mental health records from texas increased by 69% between the time we received the grant and last friday. oca has been working to make

sure records related to domestic violence and family orders are entered into the system. in fiscal year 2013, they received another grand from doj to improve reporting of domestic violence reported in the nics database. they established a task force to study the issue and make recommendations to improve reporting. the task force developed five training modules to assist in reporting to the databases and recommended improved timeliness in reporting the reports. that now requires court clerks and law enforcement to transfer those in three to four business days after the protective order is entered. prior to this, texas law was silent as to the time in which they were provided to law enforcement or entered into the system to populate the nics system. without the federal funding for these projects, the significant improvements in texas likely would not have occurred. perhaps the greatest challenge facing state courts today that want to report records is the issue of resources. most courts have few resources to devote to developing

improvements in the transmittal of these records. thanks to senator cornyn for his bill, the fix nics legislation, this reauthorizes the grant program i previously described. it provides good funding levels for these programs and we ask that congress fully fund an appropriation for the grant programs. because of the particular challenges state courts have in automated and transmitting records, we ask the state courts also be included in discussions at the federal and state level as to how to improve reporting to data bases and the dispersement of federal funding for these purposes. because the nics sixm queries records from three databases it's difficult for state courts and other agencies to verify the number of records available to nics. the inability to determine whether nics contained the appropriate number of records anticipated limits the ability to determine if there is systemic problems with reporting. we ask to allow the state to verify on a regular basis the number of records available to the system. in closing, i want to express my

appreciation for the recognition of the state court's role in improving nics. the state courts look forward to working with the committee to develop legislation that addressing the shortcomings in the current system and considered the need of state courts in the country. we comemd the committee for recognizing the national interest in insuring that our judiciary and courts be part of the solution. thank you for the opportunity to testify on these important matters. i look forward to answering any questions you may have. >> mr. halbrook. >> chairman grassley, ranking member feinstein, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to be here. i'm here as an attorney in private practice. i have done significant litigation on the brady act and nics law, on technical firearms issues. technical firearm definitions in the gun control act, and i was privileged to represent a majority of members of both houses of congress in the emeka security brief filed in d.c. versus heller. everybody here is on the same page in terms of we deplore the

violence that's taken place and we sympathize with the victims. the fix nics act, what's incredible is there's been a duty all these years ever since nics was initiated that these records being reported from federal departments and agencies. the nics improvement act from 2008 directly stated departments and agencies had to report the records, and yet there's been no oversight. we had so many new laws being advocated to make life harder on gun owners and we don't have enforcement of what's on the books. i mean, demoting people or firing them is what you do to discipline employees. instead, we're to the point we have to threaten that political employees will not get bonus pay

if they don't report these records. there are some improvements that could take place with this fix nics bill, and particularly involving where denying agencies initiate the correction of records directly with originating agencies. we have a nics appeals when people are wrongly denied, there's a problem with putting the onus on the person who is denied and not doing things that the nics system could do directly to verify and to correct records using the pacer system and state equiv lnlts of that. it's kind of a complex issue. i have it in my written testimony, so i'll move on to the automatic gunfire prevention act, which doesn't apply to automatic gunfire. it explicitly states it does not refer to the conversion of se semiauto rifles and machine guns. the language that's disturbing in this legislation is it would

ban any part that accelerates the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle. if you understand anything about firearms, you understand that trigger pull has a lot to do with rate of fire. you could have a ten-pound trigger pull, and if you put in another part or have a gunsmith change that part so it's a three-pound trigger pull, so that it's more efficient, more reliable, and more accurate, you're going to increase potentially the rate of fire. there are several other aspects about trigger pull, how smooth they can be, again, these are gunsmithing terms. the word trigger creep, the more you decrease that, the potentially the higher the rate of fire. that raises the question that you could ban any semiautomatic rifle based on a good gunsmithing job. we're not talking about bump fire stocks. we're talking about simple

mechanisms of semiautomatic rifles. that raises second amendment issues. the heller case held the second amendment protects firearms that are commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. there's also a vagueness problem with that definition. how would one know, for example, if you have a trigger pull done, a trigger pull job done that instead of taking 1.4 seconds to pull the trigger, it might take 1.2 seconds. you would need specialized equipment. you would need specialized knowledge to have any idea of that. and particularly when we start talking about the penalties here, we have ten years incarceration with no willfulness requirement. the same thing you get if you're a felon in possession of a firearm. moving on to the other concept, the trigger crank and a bump fire device, we don't even have

a definition of those in this legislation. as the atf acting director noted, some people can learn how to do a bump fire on a rifle without even any special device on it. so you have to have a definition. it's not a conversion kit. you had some discussion about proposed rulemaking. we have to keep in mind, we always like clarification from atf, but it needs to be an interpretive rule because this body makes criminal laws, not an agency. i'll close just by mentioning that all previous gun control legislation, you either have a grandfather clause or an amnesty for registration. that was passed in 1934, amended in 1968, you had an amnesty so people could register newly defined objects or firearms that would be illegal after that date. even the so-called assault weapon legislation had a grandfather klaas.

when you're talking about incarcerating people for ten years with no willfulness requirement, we need to be some kind of -- have some kind of discussion about what do you do with all those that are out there, and you know, with machine guns, you have a grandfathering, those that are registered or continue to be lawful. and you're going to take something that's not even a weapon and give these draconian penalties. there's got to be some way to ameliorate that situation. >> chief. >> chairman grassley, ranking member feinstein, thank you for holding this hearing. i know it's a very politically sensitive issue, but it's an important one that we need to talk about. i'm here representing local law enforcement. i'm here representing the nation's largest police agencies around the country. and i'm here to speak for the men and women who respond to gun

violence every day. i'm here to speak for the victims of gun violence and to speak for the officers who have been killed by gun violence. on behalf of american law enforcement, let me say it's our greatest hope that democrats and republicans can come together and adopt issues to protect the public from harm because public safety should not be a partisan issue. gun violence continues to be the number one threat for homicides in major cities. worse yet, our nation has witnessed a number of devastating mass murders as the shooting in sutherland springs and others we discussed here have demonstrated. we need to come together to protect the public. a device that results in a military attack equivalent to a full automatic firing must be stopped. bump stocks and similar devices have no legitimate sporting or hunting purpose. likewise, the screening process for individuals looking to purpose a firearm or ammunition has had many loopholes for far too long and the nics system must be strengthened.

heather's testimony was profound. the attendees at this music festival in las vegas experienced a horrific hail of gunfire. 1100 roundsane matter of minutes. the worst mass murder in the history of our nation. the shooter fired more than 1,000 rounds because of a device that you must prohibit, a bump stock. 12 of the 23 guns that he had in his hotel room were outfitted with the bump stock accessory that you're considering today. he was able to fire approximately 90 rounds every ten seconds. 90 rounds every 10 seconds into the crowd below. this deadly device has only one purpose. it enables a gunman to fire rounds at a speed equivalent to that of an automatic firearm without removing his finger from the tigger. while it is illegal for private citizens to possess fully automatic weapons, bump stocks are legal under current federal law. the sole and pointless purchase

is to accelerate the rate of fire to equal fully automatic firepower. exactly what congress has attempted to stop with previous legislation that bars fully automatic weapons. to prevent such horrific mass murders in the future, the major cities chiefs association strongly supports senator feinstein's proposal to ban bump stocks and similar devices. today i'm also entering into the record a letter from sheriff joe lombardo of las vegas, where he likewise calls for action from congress. the tragedy in sutherland springs, texas, exemplifies a strong weakness in the nics system. a 26-year-old gunman entered the first baptist church where he murdered 26 individuals and injured 20 others. the shooter entered the church wearing tactical gear and carrying a ar-15 semiautomatic rifle. he walked up and down the aisles of the church firing into the pews. law enforcement reported they

found 15 empty ar-15 rifle magazines, each one capable of holding 30 rounds. this hearing today, as is demonstrated, this killer should have been barred from the purchase of firearms or ammunition because of his mental health history and prior criminal convictions. he was charged with assaulting his wife and fracturing his child's skull. he openly made death threats against the superior officers who charged him and was caught sneaking firearms onto the air force base where he worked. this also raises a broader question. does the current nics law adequately cover mental health and domestic violence. the sutherland springs shooter was admitted to a mental health care facility in new mexico. he escaped from that facility and was apprehended, brought back to be taken for court-martial, was later found he used computers at the facility to order numerous weapons and tactical gear. testimony today has explained the loopholes and failures in nics, allowing a prohibited

person to purchase multiple weapons despite his military court-martial and discharge. that's why we strongly support the proposal to strengthen nics. a 96 fics act of 2015 is a major step to strengthen communication efforts to insure federal agencies and states will produce nics implementation plans and correct current deficiencies that result in persons being clears who should not be allowed to purchase firearms. we support this, and he goes further to call on congress to expand background checks. sheriff joe lombardo also calls on congress to swiftly adopt this long hp overdue measure to strengthen nics. these incidents that have given rise to this hearing are only the most recent reminders of what we have already known. we knew it after charleston, south carolina, where nine parishioners were killed by a white supremacist, or tucson, arizona, with congressman gabby

giffords shot by a deranged shooter. 13 others injured, 6 kills. blacksburg, six people shot by a mentally ill person who slipped through the process. today, the committee is focused on cases where nics should have barred a gun purchase from a licensed dealer, but the committee surely recognizes this is incomplete and only part of the problem. a man was -- in morgantown, west verge virmg was able to buy a gun and kill four people. he was sentenced to ten years in prison for abducting a former girlfriend. this should have preventing him from being able to purchase a firearm with ammunition as a background check would have been flagged with his felony convictions but he was able to buy a .9 millimeter handgun through a purchase on facebook. as chiefs of police, we ask the committee why did congress require background checks for some gun purchases but not all of them? you should not consider strengthening nics without also considering how background checks may be expanded to cover

all gun purchased. in a letter submitted by houston's police chief regarding the recent houston shooting, he notes that even if the gun buyer would have been banned, he could have purchased the gun elsewhere. this is not a controversial topic. in a recent poll, 91% of americans said they would vote for a measure requiring criminal background checks on all gun sales. so i'll close where i began and call for a bipartisan coalition to curb gun violence. we ask that you today make today the beginning of a comprehensive dialogue to strengthen legislation to curb gun violence. two measures before the committee will take us down a path to meaningful reform and protection of the public and they should also be the first steps toward reducing gun violence. i will tell you that the chiefs and sheriffs of this country will be with you every step of the way. thank you. >> thank you, chief. now david. push the red button.

>> thank you chairman grassley, ranking member feinstein. i most recently represented the national sheriffs association in the u.s. supreme court in the surpetition of the case of colby versus hogan. asking to overturn maryland's excessive arms prohibition laws. i represented law enforcement, a large law enforcement coalition led by the international law enforcement educators and trainers association, the main body -- the law enforcement officers who train the rest of law enforcement. i represented them in the supreme court in mcdonald versus chicago, and district of columbia versus heller, and i represented colorado sheriffs and many other law enforcement organizations across the country in support of second amendment rights. on the terrible evening of october 1st, before the tv coverage began, a twitter user provided a video showing the hotel tower and the crowd.

to me, it sounded like automatic gunfire. we do know that the criminal used bump stocks that allowed him to fire his ordinary semiautomatic guns as full as an automat automatic. the laws for automatics are very stringent. in district of columbia versus heller, the supreme court suggested sump guns are not protected by the second amendment. if a device makes an ordinary gun capable of sustained automatic fire, it should be regulated similarly to an automatic itself. under the 1934 national firearms act, many devices that make a normal firearm fire like a full automatic are already highly regulated. based on the wording of the statute, atf correctly ruled that bump stocks are not within the scope of the present statute. congress, not the atf, has the authority to change the law. any realistic new law must account for people who already own the items in question. when there are tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of such people, being realistic is especially important.

unfortunately, s-1916 has no provision for grandfathering. it takes effect 180 days after enactment so current owners have 180 days to destroy their property. some will, but others will be driven underground, pushed outside the lawful system. a better policy has been adopted by the atf when items are reclassified. in 1994, they decided three models of shotgun were covered by the 1934 national firearms act and had to be federally registered. because atf was changing its mind about guns that had been bought and sold as ordinary guns, atf offers a seven-year registration period. the atf also waived the $200 tax per gun that could have been imposed. this approach kept more arms in the legal system than a more draconian proach would have. if the law provided for grandfather regulation, it would likely pass constitutional

muster with the courts. heller indicates that full automatics are outside the scope of the second amendment, and besides that, bump stocks degrade accuracy, making a firearm less suited for self hfl sfs or hunting. their lawful use has been as range nauvties and not as self-defense items. the bill's definition doesn't even define a bump stock, but it does go much further. it prohibits anything that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but does not convert it to a machine gun. this is instraane, instreamly overbroad. one of the things that functions to accelerate the rate of a semiautomatic, are gun cleaning tools. when you remove debris, you make the parts move together better. as with any mechanical tool, cleaning it makes it work faster. certainly, the sponsor didn't intend to outlaw gun cleaning tools, but that's how far the

gun's poorly written language goes. likewise, as dr. halbrook testified, if you change the trigger pull on a gun from six pounds to four, say because your hand strength isn't as strong as the average person's, that would be prohibited. and in fact, all the people who have had trigger jobs done in the past, their arms would be retroactively outlawed. and they would become ten-year federal felons. other things that function to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle including better grip such as replacing a forward grip that came from the factory with a molded grip that helps the person stabilize the rifle and therefore be able to fire faster. indeed, anything that helps with stability, that reduces shoulder pain, advil, or things that reduce the recoil that a user feels, help the user stabilize the firearm, and therefore help in effect function to accelerate the rate of fire. guns operate by the expanding of

gas energy. some of that gas energy goes forward to push the bullet down through the gun and out the muzzle. some of it comes backward to the user is felt as recoil, and some of it dissipates elsewhere. anything that improves the operation of the gas system, the efficiency of the gun, will accelerate the rate of fire. these changes might only be acceleration of the rate of a few thousandths or tenths of a second, but they're all captured by the generic catch-all language. the bill would be significantly improved if it were only about bump stocks and not about other items. thank you very much. >> i think probably what i just heard here, you have answered it, but i'm going to ask it anyway about senator feinstein's bill being criticized as overly broad. in your opinion, would such a law survive constitutional scrutiny?

>> if it was limited only to bump stocked or if it included any part that -- >> right now, i'm asking the question on the way it's written. >> the way it's written, i think it violated the second amendment because it would ban commonly possessed semiautomatic rifles. that was the heller test in the supreme court case. >> and mr. kopel. >> yes, and this goes back to tennessee supreme court case from the 1870s that been very influential, andrews versus state, which said, of course, part of the right to arms includes gun repair and taking the gun from a place for repair. so by outlawing ordinary repairs and similar modifications, this would seriously violate the second amendment. >> and a follow-up, more generally. is there a danger that a law restricting firearms or accessories based on their rate of fire could be used to restrict semiautomatic weapons? and that would be to the two of

you as well. >> it would potential ban any semiautomatic rifle that applies to semiautomatic rifle parts and any kind of part that's used, that's more efficient that some other slower part would be encompassed in this language. >> mr. kopel. >> yes, semiautomatics, there's a big difference between a full automatic and semiautomatic, just as if i said somebody is a whit, that's different than calling them a half wit, it makes all the difference. and there's been too much of an effort, i think, sometimes to conflate semiautomatics which fire only one round when the trigger is pulled with automatic guns which fire continuously. but bump stocks are something that takes things over the line and turns a normal gun into something that effectively fires as fast as a full automatic. so legislation which respects due process but restricted bump

stocks would not violate the second amendment, and i think would be reasonable. >> okay. to the two of you again, on atf announcing that they are going to see they're going to issue regulations, in your analysis how might bump stock fit in the current statutory definition of machine gun -- well, i should let you answer that question. >> well, there's two types of opinions that atf has set forth. a bump stock that doesn't use any mechanical device like a special spring would not be a machine gun conversion kit. there's an atf ruling, i cite the number in my testimony, where atf found that because of the use of a spring that makes the mechanism work more than an automatic way, that type of bump stock would be encompassed in the machine gun conversion language.

but when you look at the atf letters about approving other bump stocks that do not have any such function, where you end up with a maniple movement that's required for every shot, equivalent to a single pull of the trigger. that's why the word bump stock itself is ambiguous. >> do you have anything to add? >> yes, the national firearms act of 1934 as amended defines as a machine gun as something that fires two or more rounds by a function of the trigger. that's the statute atf has to apply. it doesn't seem that a bump stock fits within that. you're still getting -- it doesn't make one trigger pull fire multiple rounds. so i'll be intrigued to see if -- how atf works its way through that statutory language given the high level of chevron deference used by the courts.

sometimes very imaginative readings of statutes of them up held on judicial review. >> again, to the two of you, what should be done if bump stocks with them that have already been purchased by consumers, and that'll be my last question. >> well, there's two choices we have presidents for in the gun control act. number one, you could allow bump stocks to be registered and grandfathered as was done multiple times by this body. in 1986 you had more of an expansion of the machine gun conversion kit, for example. and you had a grace period in which they were allowed to be registered. any after that date could not be manufactured. or you could have complete grandfathering of those that were in existence on the date of the enactment or the effective date as was done with magazines and semiautomatic rifles that were banned under the 1994

legislation. so you could have a grandfather clause that's completely -- the ban doesn't apply to anything made before that date, or you could have a registration system as with the nfa where you would register items up to that point. >> do you have anything to add, mr. copel? >> if there's no grandfathering, other things could be added to the black market, which would make a more dangerous. >> i want to point out california has had a law in effect since january 1, 2012, which essentially says a manual or power trigger driven operated device constructed or designed so when attached to a semiautomatic firearm it increases the rate of fire from that firearm. and that is prohibited, and there has been no case brought

in court against it. i'm not weighted to any language. what we tried to do was make this simple, direct and understandable. and anything in it can be changed, but the point is that it's unlawful for any person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer or possess a trigger crank, a bump fire device or any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment or accessory that's designed and functions -- and here's the key -- to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun. so i can certainly change language, but i think that this is worthy. it was drafted by attorneys who

know their stuff, so we will see. but chief, i wanted to thank you and i wanted to thank your organization. you always have been stand up. and it's really appreciated. everything in this area is tough to get done. and it's just an amazing thing as i sit here and i see what happens in this country, and it gets worse and worse and worse. and the bodies can't step up and do anything about it. this is one small thing that could be done, that could make a change that hopefully could keep these things off the market. but i really want to say something to you, heather. i've had occasion just in a small way to find a colleague of mine that had just been shot to death. i know a little bit about what it's like.

but on a micro level, in comparison to what you experienced, you are one strong woman. i want you to know that. i want you to feel it. i want you to hold your head high. what you did most people could not. and i am just so proud of you. and so i want to say on behalf of all of us, thank you. thank you, thank you. thanks, mr. chairman. >> mr. durbin -- senator durbin. >> and let me join the course, heather. because i know you're a native of illinois, grew up there. and thank you for telling your story. i'm sorry you had to tell it, but we need to see that these gun tragedies are real human beings who are dying in front of us, and we need to do more to stop it. we have two tragedies here. we have the tragedy in las

vegas, the tragedy in texas which has been referred to. and two different circumstances. in one the man in texas never should have had a firearm, the system failed. but the system is not perfect nor is it designed to be even close to perfect. there are loopholes in the system. there are ways to avoid a background check for a gun. i know that. 48% of crimes of guns used in chicago come from gun shows where there's no background checks. to say we're going to fix nics is to really apply it to every firearm sale. otherwise we're saying tsa just check every other airline passenger. we would never say that. when it comes to guns, we say that in america. the other thing, though, is the nature of the weapon involved. assuming the second amendment constitutional right to bear

firearms, does anyone imagine -- and i'm sure everyone realizes what i'm saying is an exaggeration -- that our founding fathers thought that gave an american citizen the right to own a firearm that discharged 480 rounds in that church in texas and 1,100 rounds in las vegas. how does that fit into the notion of self-defense or the use of firearms for sport or hunting? it doesn't. and i think future generations may take a look at this hearing and play it back and say, my goodness, they were walking around the obvious. there are weapons there that have only one purpose, mass killing. that's what it's about. it doesn't have anything to do with shooting ducks or deer.

if you needed that kind of weapon to shoots a deer, you ought to stick to fish. you know, that is fact. and we seem to have agreed, nobody argues with the notion of banning automatic weapons. nobody said that's unconstitutional, at least i don't think so. but when you can take a semiautomatic weapon and now make it an automatic weapon, obviously we've got a debate here. as mr. copel drew an analogy, i'll remember that for a long time, in terms of whether you can have use of a repetitive firearm. today its bump stocks, and tomorrow it'll be something else. i was on your assault weapons bill. how many years ago was that, senator feinstein? >> 1993. >> they invented their way around your bill. they'll invent their way around bump stocks, too, so they can find another way for people to discharge hundreds and thousands of rounds killing innocent people. we've got to come to grips with reality here. as the chief said when 91% of people say to us, for goodness sakes, be sensible when it comes to background checks, use common

sense when it comes to firearms, even firearm dealers are saying that to us, you can't hear it in congress. chief, there's a major before the house of representatives about concealed carry. right now every state sets its standard. there are people in the rifle association and others argue we've got to do away with that. we've got to say if you're allowed to carry a concealed weapon in one state you can carry it into another with impunity. what do you think of that proposal? >> i think it's misguided, and i will tell you i think it's dangerous for the community, and i think it's dangerous for my police officers. senator cruz and senator cornyn talked about the two gentlemen

that intervened in that case. and i will tell you that they did help in that situation. but there are many, many more, hundreds of times more situations where someone with a gun inserts themselves into a situation thinking that a firearm will solve the problem. and i've been a cop for 40 years, and i know this from first-hand experience that there's only a rare occasion when the use of a gun is lawful, appropriate and necessary. and sutherland springs may have been one of those situations, but the presence of a gun in my view only increases the danger to the community and my police officers. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator cohens. you'll be the last one. >> thank you. i want to thank this panel of witnesses for their testimony and particularly, heather, for your testimony and for the insight that you give all of us and everybody who is watching about what the horrific experience of being a victim of gun violence and around those

who are struggling to survive an incident like this. as you may know i'm from wilmington, delaware. we've had a great deal of gun violence in our little city in the last few years. and i've met with families, victims of gun violence. none of the incidents as massive or tragic or overwhelming as the one you've survived. are there things you would like us as members of congress to know about your experience that you haven't had the opportunity to share, or is it best if i just thank you for your testimony today and move on? >> well, thank you for thanking me. again, i don't feel like -- everybody who was there did what they had to do. but, you know, at any point you expected to turn around and see this guy or men or women running through here with machine guns. that's what it sounded like to us. and just from listening to what

everybody has said, again, automatic weapons are -- are not allowed. so why is a piece of equipment that turns a semiautomatic into an automatic allowed? because now it's an automatic weapon. and that's just what i've gotten from listening to everybody. and it doesn't matter if it's a one-on-one gun or somebody's shooting from the 32nd floor, you know, into a crowd of 32,000. it affects all of us. we become members of this family, this community that none of us want to be a part of, and we're in it for the rest of our lives. and it affects us for the rest of our lives. none of us ever get over it. but if there's something we can do to stop this from happening next week, next month, next year, if we can stop somebody from walking into a festival, into a church, into a school, then we need to do everything possible to make this not happen ever or as often as it is. >> thank you. thank you for that passionate reminder that the struggle to turn loss and suffering into positive forward motion is one

of the most inspiring common features of everyone who's had this kind of experience. chief major, if i might, you may or may not know i was a county executive before becoming a u.s. senator and was honored to have the opportunity of serving along a county police force of about 180 sworn officers. i asked a question in a previous panel about officer safety and how we are putting atf agents at risk by asking them to go and try and locate weapons that may have been inappropriately secured. i'd be interested in hearing more from you about if the fix nix act passes, what other gaps are there that would allow dangerous individuals to acquire firearms? and what are the main challenges facing law enforcement when working with federal agencies to prosecute illegal firearm performances.

do you think it would enhance safety if more firearm purchases were prosecuted and enhance safety if local law enforcement was notified when there was a failed background check? >> to your last two questions, the answer is yes. i think the biggest gap we have is the gun show loophole. if we can fix nix, but people are still allowed -- if we do not accompany that with a universal background check, a background check on every gun purchase, then there is a huge gap in what we need to do. i think that firearm violence is probably one of the most challenging things for cities around this country, especially for major urban areas. i will tell you the atf has been phenomenal in working with law enforcement. the u.s. attorneys offices from around the country have worked closely with federal

prosecutions, which are tremendously effective, oftentimes more effective than what we can do at the state level. so i think the relationship is there, and it is effective. so you asked me several questions, and i think i hit on all of them. >> i appreciate your testimony to the effect that it would help promote officers' safety and help promote the cooperation between federal and local law enforcement. if failed background checks produced notification to state and local law enforcement and if more illegal firearm purchases were prosecuted. there's a big divide between most members of our two major political parties on whether we should do things that outlaw weapons or styles of weapons. what i hear from gun owners and

civic activists in my home state and city is why can't we start by strengthening the background systems we have, strengthening the resources for federal and local law enforcement and by doing our best to make sure that those who have access to weapons don't in the two tragic instances that have been the focus of this hearing today, one individual who absolutely should not have been able to purchase weapons, who tragically did, and murdered many, and another that modified weapons in a way that should be illegal. chief, thank you for your service. i'd like to thank the entire second panel and senator blumenthal for your leadership on this issue. >> thank you. i seem to be the last senator here. even though i'm not a member of the majority, i've been asked by

senator grassley to ask my questions and at that point we're probably in a position to adjourn. i just want to thank all of you for being here today. both of these panels have been really excellent and have given us both facts and perspectives that are extremely valuable. i particularly want to thank you, heather, for the courage and strength of being here today knowing before other families who have been before this panel the kind of fortitude it takes not only to do what you did but then to relive it as you're doing now. so my thanks from all of us on this panel. i want to, if i may, ask mr. slaton, you mentioned the importance of resources. i'm wondering if you could give

us specifics in amount of money that were necessary for texas to improve its system and also exactly why that's important. is it computer software? is it people? if you could give us more specifics. >> thank you, senator. in texas, the grantings s we re from the federal government was somewhere less than a half a million dollars over a couple of years that we received. we used the funding to be able to literally hire staff to go out and review records. as was mentioned earlier by one of the panelists, we went back 20 years to review all the records that should potentially be in the nix system and make sure they were. we assisted those different counties and jurisdictions and clerk's offices across the state in finding those records and entering them into the nix system where appropriate. so that's one thing is using resources of actually staff who

can go out and literally be a task force or a force to go out and sort of work through those historical records. going forward from that, one of the things we found really helpful is of course providing training and ongoing training to make sure individuals who are responsible for these functions understand exactly what it is they need to be doing, whether that be online training through training modules or face-to-face training and making sure those manuals and task forces and things like that are in place. i think from that per speck thaich -- per speck they've's one of the issues. the other side of the coin is automation. when people are involved and having to do this on a manual basis, it produces the risk of someone missing something. if we could use an automated system that could truly identify these and put them up on a system automatically, that works better and certainly that takes money to make that happen in many jurisdictions. >> we've had some questions

about domestic violence and the relationship between domestic violence and gun violence. the statistic i've heard many times is a woman is five times more likely to die if there is a firearm in the home during an incident of domestic violence. i don't know what the basis for that number is, but would any of you disagree that gun violence is far more likely or i should say domestic violence is far more likely to be deadly and far more injurious if there are guns involved? chief? >> senator -- many of the merchandises that occur in this country are domestic related. there have been studies, extensive studies done about what were the red flags that folks might have been able to see when you start with folks

arguing or getting in fights to progressing to a homicide. what these studies taught us, we have put together what's called a lethality assessment tool. every time one of my cops goes to a call for domestic violence, there's a checklist of about a dozen questions, and they ask, you know, things like has the person ever threatened your children, has the person ever choked you. one of the questions is do they own a firearm. the reason that question is in there is because that has been determined to be under certain circumstances a red flag. so there is definitely that you can connect the dots between some behavior, domestic violence, and the possession of a firearm that would increase the likelihood of there being a homicide at some point in the case.

>> i appreciate your answer and i agree with the conclusion. that's why i sponsored the laurie jackson domestic violence act. laurie jackson was a woman in connecticut killed by her estranged husband while efs und he was under a temp rare porary pre order, not a permanent one, a temporary one. women are killed, principally women, by their intimate partners while under temporary protective orders, which are issued in the first ten days or two weeks during a time when the level of rage is greatest, in other words, the danger to the woman is highest, and they are least protected. so the laurie jackson victims protection act would extend that coverage to domestic -- victims of domestic violence who were protected by temporary orders. the law now applies only to permanent orders. likewise, another loophole in the current law is the 72-hour

exception. i'm sure you are familiar with it. if a background check isn't complete within 72 hours, the purchase can go forward. fooechb the purchaser is ineligible under the current federal law. it's a loophole. i call it the charleston loophole because dylann roof in charleston was able to purchase a firearm only because of that loophole. he would have been -- he was ineligible under the current law. so there are loopholes even under the current nonuniversal background check system that would make enforcement of the current law more effective. and more broadly, we need universalunit ver universal background checks is my personal belief, as well as other commonsense measures that will help prevent gun

violence. my time has long expired, and i want to thank the chairman for his indulgence and, again, for his holding this hearing, which i think shows the ability of this panel to disagree but -- and we do disagree, but still want to explore and elicit all the facts that are important and all the perspectives. thank you all. >> at the end here, i thank you and i suppose most of us in congress don't appreciate all the work you have to do to get prepared for this, but thank you and we're going to continue to consider this issue very much. thank you all for your being here. hearing adjourned.

next, education secretary betsy devos leads what she's calling a rethink education summit as educators talk about new initiatives and nontraditional teaching. after that, the house foreign affairs committee looks at global alzheimer's treatment and prevention efforts. and starting at 8:00, the c-span cities tour features programs about richmond, virginia.

the first federal congress and slavery on presidential plantations. live coverage at 1:30 and 3:30 p.m. eastern on c-span2, online at c-span.org and on the free c-span radio app. >> saturday, american history tv on c-span3 takes you to the american historical association's annual meeting in washington, d.c., for live all-day coverage, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. eastern. join us as historians and scholars talk about civil rights in 1968, watergate, and the rise of partnership, commemorating civil war reconstruction in national fenway parks, and the new birmingham civil rights national monument. live coverage of the american historical association annual meeting, saturday on american history tv on c-span3.

>> tonight on a special presentation of book-tv and prime time on c-span2, books from 2017 that focused on the u.s. military. authors include former president george w. bush and his book "tort ra "portraits of courage." mary jennings hager on her combat experience in afghanistan. retired admirals write about sea power. and a chronicle of the rise of u.s. special forces. book-tv and primetime friday night starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern. last month betsy devos held a rethink school summit to focus on higher education. educators talked about how moving away from traditional ways of college