[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 48 (Thursday, April 11, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2572-S2581]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SAFE COMMUNITIES, SAFE SCHOOLS ACT OF 2013--MOTION TO PROCEED
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 649,
which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 32, S. 649, a bill to
ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from
buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal
background check system and require a background check for
every firearm sale, and for other purposes.
[[Page S2573]]
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time
until 11 a.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two
leaders or their designees, with Senators permitted to speak for up to
10 minutes each.
The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, we are on the verge of a historic vote
that will determine whether we make America safer and assure that we do
everything possible as Senators and citizens to ensure there are no
more Newtowns.
On the evening of December 14, when we left the firehouse at Sandy
Hook, there was a vigil at a church in Newtown, St. Rose of Lima,
presided over by Father Bob, who is Monsignor Robert Weiss. It was a
very moving and powerful experience. The church was filled. People
stood at the windows to hear what was going on.
The Governor spoke and so did I. I said that evening: The world is
watching Newtown. And, in fact, the world was watching Newtown, as we
knew from the horror of that afternoon, when many of us arrived at the
church, and first at the firehouse, to see families emerging and
learning for the first time that their children, their babies, would
not be coming home that evening. It was an experience that will stay
with me forever. The sights and sounds of that afternoon, filled with
grief and pain, will never leave me.
The world was watching Newtown that day and that evening and has
watched Newtown and Connecticut in the days and months since, and I
have been privileged to spend many hours and days and weeks and these
past months with the families.
The world has watched the families, and it has seen in them and in
Newtown--a great community, a quintessential New England town--strength
and courage that was as unimaginable as the horror of that day,
strength and courage that represents what is good about America and
what is strong and courageous about our Nation.
The world has watched Newtown and the families of Newtown and it has
watched Connecticut. Now the world is watching the Senate. It is
watching the Senate to see whether democracy works. It sounds simple,
but it is true. Will democracy work to reflect the majority of the
United States of America, the majority of our people who say we need to
do something about the guns. That is what the families said to me that
day and in days since and what people in Connecticut and across the
country have said to their Senators: We must do something about gun
violence.
I remember talking to one of the families that evening and saying:
When you are ready, we ought to talk about what we can do in Congress
to stop gun violence. She said to me: I am ready now.
The Senate must be ready now to act. It must keep faith with those
families and victims--as the world watches--with Benjamin Andrew
Wheeler, age 6. His father David is here today, and Benjamin is here in
spirit as we decide in the Senate whether we will move forward toward
progress.
Ana Grace Marquez-Greene, also age 6. Her mother Nelba is here today.
Ana is with us in spirit.
Dylan Hockley, age 6, whose mother Nicole is here, is also here in
spirit.
Daniel Barden, age 7. His mother Jackie and his father Mark are here.
Jesse Lewis, age 6. His father Neil Heslin is here.
Mary Sherlach, one of the six educators killed at Sandy Hook
Elementary, whose husband Bill is here--Jesse and Mary are here with us
too.
We know compromise and action are possible because two of our
colleagues have forged a bipartisan compromise that will enable us to
come closer. It is imperfect. It is less than what I would have
preferred in achieving universal background checks. It is a starting
point. It is a step in the right direction, and it will help us achieve
a larger bipartisan compromise because background checks are only one
part of a comprehensive strategy that must include a ban on illegal
trafficking, strengthening school safety, as well as mental health
initiatives and a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. I
will be privileged to spearhead that effort on high-capacity
magazines--hopefully next week--after today's vote, along with
colleagues such as Dianne Feinstein, Frank Lautenberg, and my
colleague, Chris Murphy.
Today, let us decide, as the world watches, there will be no more
Newtowns. That is what the families want. That is what America wants.
Let us resolve that we will make democracy work as we go beyond this
first step and decide to proceed on a bill that also is imperfect but
provides a starting point, provides a way forward, so we can make our
communities safer.
The families of Newtown have performed an extraordinary service for
our Nation. Not only has the world watched and been inspired by their
strength and courage, but they have turned the tide. They have visited
with our colleagues and they have impacted this process more profoundly
and more directly than any other single group. They have shown we can
break the stranglehold of special interests and the NRA, that speaking
truth to power still works. To them we owe a special thanks. To them,
as a nation, we owe a debt of gratitude for the lives that will be
saved, for the futures that will be given. Even if their children and
their loved ones will not enjoy that future, they have given futures to
countless Americans who will be saved from the scourge of gun violence.
To them I say thank you. They are in this building, and their
children, their loved ones, are with us in spirit as we take this
historic step.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I am honored to be on the floor this
morning to begin today's debate on this historic gun violence measure
with my colleague Senator Blumenthal. I join with him in my awe of the
Newtown families who are here this week. People have watched them on
the news as they have gone from office to office and told the story of
their loved ones. Nobody can paint a picture better as to why we need
to act next week than the families of those people who lost their lives
in Newtown.
There are so many stories they can tell better than anyone else. They
can tell the story of their lost first graders, but they can also tell
the story of the five little boys and girls who escaped that morning,
who escaped when the shooter went to reload and there was a brief
period of time where some kids could run out of one of those first-
grade classrooms.
Better than anyone else, these families can posit as to whether their
little boys and girls would still be alive if the shooter walked in
with 10-round clips rather than 30-rounds clips, if he had to exchange
magazines 15 times rather than 5 or 6 times. Nobody can tell that story
better than these families.
What I have tried to do over the course of the last couple days is to
help these families tell the story of their loved ones but to also
paint a broader picture to talk about the 30 lives every day that are
ended by gun violence. I think we need to talk about the victims and
allow for the voices of those victims to be part of the debate, because
while the tragedy in Newtown has gotten the headlines and the
highlights and is certainly the reason we are standing here today, more
people than were killed in Newtown die every day in this country from
gun violence--on the streets of Washington and Hartford and Bridgeport
and Baltimore--all across the country.
These victims need to be our imperative, whether they be the 6- and
7-year-old kids and the teachers in Newtown or the 25-year-olds and 17-
year-olds who are dying every single day across our country. It has to
end. The answer cannot be, as it has been for 20 years, that we are
going to do nothing. So I wish to take a few minutes to continue
telling these stories this morning.
I wish to begin with Dylan Hockley. Dylan's mother has probably been
one of the most articulate spokesmen for this cause. His parents Nicole
and Ian have been amazing in their ability to grieve and also to come
down to Washington and argue their cause.
Dylan loved video games. He loved jumping on trampolines. He loved
watching movies. He was autistic, but he was doing so much better. He
was so proud of the fact that he had learned how to read, and he was
taking out books every day from the library to bring home. His parents
chose Sandy Hook Elementary School because of its great autism program.
[[Page S2574]]
I spoke yesterday about his paraprofessional, his special education
aid, who was so wonderful to assist him in doing better every single
day. Because of his autism, he was a child who loved routine and
repetition, and there were a few movies he would watch over and over
and over again--``Up,'' ``WALL-E,'' ``The Gruffalo''--and he would find
those portions of the movies he loved so much. He would sit in front of
the TV with his headphones on rewinding those portions over and over
and over again, and every single time he watched those movies, he would
laugh over and over and over again.
His parents have created an organization called Dylan's Wings of
Change. It is a memorial fund to benefit children with autism. It is
just one of a multitude of efforts that have flowed forth from this
tragedy. Dylan's life was ended, but this fund is going to help make
sure other kids like him have the chance to lead great, normal lives,
even though they deal with complex problems such as autism.
Mr. DURBIN. Would the Senator from Connecticut yield for a question?
Mr. MURPHY. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I wish to commend the Senator from
Connecticut, Mr. Murphy, as well as Senator Blumenthal. In the last 2
days they have come to the floor many times leading the floor debate
and discussion on the pending legislation we will vote on soon relative
to guns and gun safety. It is appropriate that they are here because,
being the Senators representing Newtown, CT, they have personal
attachment to the families who have weathered this tragedy.
This morning I met with those families in my office. Tears were shed,
as you might expect. These families have lost little children like
Dylan and so many others. It is a loss they will feel for a lifetime,
but in their grief, they have come forward and shown extraordinary
courage to walk through the corridors of power in Washington to bring a
simple message: that they do not want this to happen to any other
parent.
I thank Senator Murphy and Senator Blumenthal for reminding us that
we have the power, we have been given the power by the people we
represent to make this a safer nation for families, for children, for
schools, and for communities across the board. Soon we will have a
vote. We are hoping--I think that is a positive hope--that enough on
the other side of the aisle will step forward to defy the filibuster
that has been threatened and bring this matter to the floor for a vote.
I know Senator Murphy and Senator Blumenthal have come to the floor
for the last day and a half and more to dramatize that issue. What I
found interesting, and I would like to ask the Senator from Connecticut
to comment on it, is the promise of this community. They gave me a list
of things and said: This goes beyond guns and gun safety. I would ask
the Senator if he could address this promise that came out of Newtown,
CT, after the terrible tragedy on December 14.
Mr. MURPHY. I thank the Senator for his career fighting on behalf of
legislation that will address gun violence. The summation of all of
that work hopefully will be with us this week and next week.
I thank the Senator for his question about the Sandy Hook promise.
The Sandy Hook promise, which has been signed by tens of thousands of
people all across the country, came out of this tragedy because there
was a recognition, as you said, that this was not a sprint, that this
was a marathon, that the promise we needed to make to each other in the
wake of this horrific tragedy was not just that we were going to do
everything within our power, our individual powers to try to reduce the
incidence of gun violence--and as Senator Durbin points out, we have
more power, the 100 of us, than almost anyone else, and shame on us if
we do not use it. But the Sandy Hook promise is that there are so many
other things that you can do: that you can make smaller commitments in
your communities to build bigger and better systems of mental health;
that you can try to forge atmospheres in schools that are more
inviting, that are more positive; that you can, frankly, just be nicer
to your neighbors, you can be more thoughtful in your everyday
interactions, knowing there could be some tragedy around the corner
that takes your neighbor away from you; make sure you say everything
you want to say to that person.
So this promise--a promise to do everything within our power to try
to make sure this never happens again, but to bring a new level of
positivity to our world in the wake of this awful violence, is one of
the most important things that come from it.
We are so grateful that these families are here not just challenging
us to pass specific pieces of legislation but also to make our lives
change in the wake of this situation.
Mr. DURBIN. I would like to ask if the Senator would yield for a
further question through the Chair.
One of the issues the Senator just raised is one I would like to have
him expound on; that is, the issue of mental illness and mental health.
I think this is something in my lifetime on which we have seen dramatic
progress made, not just in the treatment of mental illness but in our
attitude toward mental illness.
There was a time in the history of this country and this world when
mental illness was viewed not as an illness but a curse. The people who
were afflicted by it were often shunned and institutionalized and
treated very badly because it was considered to be something incurable
and they had somehow been cursed. That was their plight on Earth. Thank
goodness that has changed and we now have a more positive attitude
toward dealing with mental illness.
I might say I have read--I believe it is accurate--more than half the
people in America suffer from some form of depression. It is very
common in most families. It is treatable. Most mental illnesses are
treatable. Most victims of mental health illness are people who are
peaceful, God-fearing, loving people who need understanding and help.
They are no threat to anyone. More often, they are the victims of
violence rather than the perpetrators of violence.
One person in the community of Newtown who stepped up and clearly was
unstable and used those firearms on December 14 to kill innocent people
has caused us to step back and take a look at the issue of mental
illness as it relates to guns and firearms. I think what we are trying
to do in this legislation is to say: If your mental illness has reached
such an extreme, if you are so unstable or threatening that you need to
be watched in terms of purchasing firearms, let's make sure the records
are there.
But I hope--I know the Senator agrees with this--I hope we will not
allow this discussion to take us away from the beginning part: that
treating mental illness and helping people is the right thing to do,
not shunning them, not pushing them aside from the rest of the
mainstream, but understanding that treatment of mental illness makes us
a better people, gives them a better chance at life. It is that small,
small minority of those suffering from these afflictions who need to be
monitored in terms of the use and purchase of firearms.
Mr. MURPHY. I thank the Senator for that comment. As he knows, there
is absolutely nothing inherent in mental illness that creates a
connection to violence. As the Senator said very correctly, people with
mental illness are much more likely to be the victims of violence than
to perpetrate a crime. The great irony coming out of this debate could
be that if we make the awful mistake of equating violence with mental
illness, than we will frankly make it harder for people to go out and
seek treatment, not easier.
Adam Lanza was a deeply disturbed individual. His mother made awful
mistakes, but she was certainly trying to figure out a way to get him
help. The fact is that there are far too many families out there who do
not have places to turn for treatment. That is the right thing to do
independent of this debate today. We should absolutely be talking about
the comprehensive commitment to ending gun violence, but the reality is
that today there are way too many families who hit brick walls in
trying to find mental health treatment for children.
If we were to go through this debate and somehow stereotype people
with mental illness as prone to violence, then it would, frankly,
create more barriers. There is a proposal out there from one of the gun
lobby groups to
[[Page S2575]]
create a registry of everyone with mental illness across this country.
It is an absolutely ludicrous idea, especially when this very same
group opposes keeping a registry of everyone with guns in this country.
I take the Senator's concerns to heart.
This was a very serious incident in Newtown, but it should not cause
us to take steps backward in terms of the support we give families who
are looking for help for their loved ones.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the last point I would like to make is
that included in the bill that came before us is not only an
opportunity to change some of the circumstances that might have saved
lives in Newtown but also to address some underlying issues of gun
violence that is not resulting in a mass killing but the killing on a
day-to-day basis of innocent people.
A measure I have joined Senator Leahy, Senator Kirk, and Senator
Collins in introducing relates to straw purchases. These are purchases
by some individual who does not have a problem in their background that
would disqualify them from buying a gun. They buy a gun and then turn
it over to someone who has a problem. This straw purchase or third-
party purchase happens way too often.
In the city of Chicago, where we are making progress toward reducing
gun violence and murder, in a recent survey of the crime guns
confiscated in the last 10 years, 9 percent of them in the city of
Chicago came from the State of Mississippi. The State of Mississippi is
not contiguous to Illinois. It is a long way away. But clearly someone
had started an industry of buying guns easily in Mississippi and moving
them up the interstate system all the way to Chicago and selling them
to the gang bangers and the thugs and criminal elements in this city.
Another 20 percent of the guns came from one gun shop outside the
city of Chicago, in the suburbs. We know exactly where it is--it is in
Riverdale, IL. That has become the venue of choice for girlfriends to
go buy a gun for their boyfriends, who are going to use them to kill
somebody. Well, the provision in the law we are going to try to bring
to the floor in the base bill says that this will now be a stiff
Federal crime--a hard-time Federal crime--to buy a gun that you knew or
should have known was going to be used in the commission of a crime. So
although it does not directly affect the circumstances of the tragedy
in Newtown, it really does hold out promise to reduce some of the other
deaths.
Yesterday the Senator gave us a chart that showed how many have died
from gun violence since December 14. It was a big chart with a lot of
faces on it of people who had died. I thank the Senator for what he has
done in terms of what has affected Newtown, but I also thank him for
supporting this underlying legislation.
I think this chart is now being shown here. I hope we keep in mind
that gun safety and reducing gun violence means start with the
massacres, the tragedies that have stricken us, but also go beyond that
and find a way to make the streets safer for Hadiya Pendleton, a high
school girl who came up from Chicago for the inauguration, could not
have had a happier day, and then 10 days later was gunned down in a
park next to her school in the city.
So we want to make this a comprehensive and a balanced, commonsense
approach to gun safety. I thank the Senator from Connecticut for that.
Mr. MURPHY. I thank the majority whip. Just to add to his last
comment, my constituents are amazed that we do not have a Federal law
banning gun trafficking today. They are amazed that if you go into a
store and buy guns legally and then walk outside that store and sell
them to people who are prohibited, that you have not committed a
Federal crime. There is an assumption that the Federal Government would
disallow that. We have not. But hopefully at the end of this debate we
will. I thank Senator Durbin for all of his fantastic work on that
issue.
Let me tell a few more stories. I want to get to Senator Durbin's
point and tell some stories about the victims of urban gun violence as
well, but let me tell one more story from Newtown.
This is the story of our heroic principal. Dawn Hochsprung was the
principal at Sandy Hook Elementary School. People have heard a lot
about her because she was perhaps the first to die that day. When the
bullets started flying, when she heard the gunman enter through the
front door, she ran straight to him. Some of the investigators have
posited, given the way the crime scene shook out, that she may have
even lunged for the gunman to try to stop him before he turned the
corner to the first grade classrooms. She was unsuccessful. She was
killed--perhaps the first that day.
The irony surrounding this day is multifold, but part of it involves
the fact that one of her most recent proudest accomplishments as
principal of that school was the establishment and integration of a
brandnew security system, one that made sure every visitor who entered
that school after 9:30 had to buzz in, had to talk to the security
people, the front desk people, before they entered the school. That
does not work too well when the person trying to gain entry does not
need to press the buzzer but instead can take an AR-15, which sprays
six bullets a second, and just knock out all of the windows.
She was a passionate educator. She dove into her work at Sandy Hook.
She was one of those folks who did not sit in their office. She was out
amongst the hallways at all times trying to make that place a much more
positive environment.
She grew up in Connecticut. She lived in Woodbury, CT, with her
husband and her two daughters and three stepdaughters. She grew up
loving the outdoors. Her friends recalled that Dawn Lafferty at the
time was a tomboy who loved sports in high school. She wasn't a top-
level athlete, but that didn't stop her.
One of the most amazing stories I have heard about Dawn was that when
she was in school at Naugatuck High School, she wanted to run with the
boys track team. She wanted to run sprints. She wasn't allowed to do
that. She protested to the coach, the administration, and they still
said she couldn't run sprints with the boys track team. She took her
case to the school board--as a high school student--and won her case.
When she came back to her high school, she didn't just run sprints with
the boys, but she recruited other girls to run sprints with her. She
was a born leader.
Perhaps we may take some solace in the fact that so many of these
other kids here--Dylan, Chase, Benjamin, Jesse, and Ana--were leaders
too. They were going to do amazing things with their lives. At least we
were able to know with Dawn what her true potential was. We saw that
potential in the wonderful school she built.
I just spoke about Dylan. Dylan's parents came from England all the
way to Sandy Hook, CT, for this school because of the programs Dawn
built there. If they ever had any doubt as to whether they had chosen
the right leader, they were confident of this when she ran to the
gunman to try to stop the carnage from becoming worse.
Let me speak about one more little girl, age 6, Madeleine Hsu.
Madeleine was, again, one of the youngest victims that day. She was a
shy and relatively quiet 6-year-old, but there were certain things that
would make her light up. A lot of these kids loved animals. Madeleine
loved dogs. She lit up around dogs. They were her passion. She was an
avid reader, and she loved running and dancing. More than anything
else, she loved to wear bright, flowery dresses which matched her
personality. She shared a bed with two of her sisters. They had their
own rooms, but they loved each other so much, they chose to sleep
together at night. They miss her dearly.
As Senator Durbin pointed out, 20 kids and 6 adults were killed in
Newtown that day; 2 others, Adam and Nancy Lanza--28 total. This is
less than the average number of people who are killed by gun violence
across this country every day. We deserve to talk about them as well.
Before I leave the floor today, I would like to talk about a couple
of the most recent victims of gun violence. One can't even really read
this poster Senator Durbin referred to because each one of these little
dots is an individual figure representing people who have been killed
in this country since December 14. The 28 people from Newtown aren't
even on this chart. We are speaking about 3,800 people who have died as
a result of gun violence.
Some of these people died because they were possibly doing something
[[Page S2576]]
wrong or in the midst of an activity they shouldn't have been a part
of. However, Chuck Walker was 15 years old and walking on his way to
visit his girlfriend to deliver some new shoes he purchased for her. He
was bringing a gift to his girlfriend. His family said this was a kid
who never, ever was in trouble. He was walking to visit his girlfriend,
and he was gunned down on the streets of Hillcrest Heights, MD, in an
apparent robbery.
Marckel Worman Ross, who was 18 years old, on September 11, 2012, was
walking to school. He was a member of the track team, ROTC, and was
thinking about a career in the military. He was found in his school
uniform still holding his backpack. It was a random act of violence on
the way to school.
Moses Walker was older--40 years old. He was a police officer. He had
just finished his shift in August of 2012. He was four blocks from his
police station, and he was gunned down--1 year away from retirement. He
was very active in his community, not only a great police officer but
served as deacon of his church. He was remembered as a courteous,
polite, and humble police officer--gunned down four blocks from his
police station.
These are the tragedies bringing us here to the floor today. As we
have this debate, we should remember that every day 30 people across
this country are dying from guns. We have the power to do something
about it.
I am as pleased as Senator Blumenthal about the compromise brought to
this floor by Senators Manchin and Toomey. It is not perfect, but it is
important. It is important because it will make our streets safer and
ensure fewer criminals across this country have access to guns. It is a
platform for more next week, but it is a very important start.
I will be back to the floor later today and next week to speak about
more of these victims.
I yield the floor.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, earlier I met with families from
Newtown, CT, to discuss the legislation we are currently debating. It
was emotional and difficult for all of us. I thank them for sharing
their stories of their loved ones and their concerns with me. I hope my
colleagues will also consider meeting with these families.
At the meeting, they called for a debate on the legislation, a debate
we are having. Nonetheless, we are in the unusual position of being
asked to take a leap into the unknown. We are being asked to vote to
proceed to an uncertain bill. That bill is not even the bill that we
would likely consider if the motion to proceed were successful. The
language on background checks would change. We have not seen the actual
new background check language. But we are being asked to proceed to the
bill anyway. What we do have is a summary of the proposed background
check language. That summary raises questions. For instance, the
summary states that the background check language applies to sales at
gun shows and online. Is a background check required if someone sees a
gun at a gun show, then proceeds to purchase the gun outside the gun
show, maybe even in a parking lot? What if someone at a gun show trades
but does not sell a gun? And it applies beyond gun shows. If a private
person advertises a gun, then the transfer would have to go through a
licensed dealer, at a price. So if someone takes out an ad to sell
their gun in the local Farm Bureau newsletter or in their church
bulletin, they would have to find a licensed gun dealer to conduct a
background check before sale could go through.
That is quite a limitation on private sales and ownership of guns.
And it takes time in many places in this country to find that gun
dealer to conduct that background check. The summary is not specific:
which private sales would be exempt from the bill's background check
requirements? The summary states that background checks are ``required
for sales at gun shows and online while securing certain aspects of 2nd
Amendment rights for law abiding citizens.''
That should cause everyone concern. If the background check language
secures ``certain aspects of 2nd Amendment rights,'' then what aspects
of second amendment rights of law abiding citizens does it not secure?
The summary says that the new language exempts ``temporary
transfers.'' What is the difference between a ``temporary'' and a
permanent transfer? How would a law-abiding citizen know whether the
transfer would be considered to be ``temporary''? What if the person
making the transfer thought at the time it was made that the transfer
would be temporary but later decides that it should be for a longer
time?
And the summary claims that it will close the ``gun show and other
looopholes.'' What ``other loopholes''? We should be skeptical about
what rights could be infringed based on that claim. It is important to
understand that there is no such thing as a ``gun show loophole.''
Under existing law, background checks are required for gun purchases
from a federally licensed firearms dealer. This is true whether the
purchase is made at a gun show or any other location. Also, under
existing law, gun purchases made through someone who is not a federally
licensed firearms dealer do not require a background check.
This is true whether the sale is made at a gun show or not. Whether a
sale is made at a gun show is therefore irrelevant to whether a
background check is required. There is one rule for sales from licensed
dealers and another for private sales. But under the new language, not
all private sales will be treated the same. Some private sales will
require background checks and others will not. That distinction will
create, not close, a loophole. No longer would all private sales be
treated the same. Some private sales will require background checks and
others will not. There will be political pressure then to say that all
private sales should be covered--universal background checks, in other
words. And we heard testimony in the Judiciary Committee, and the
Deputy Director of the National Institute of Justice has written, that
universal background checks can be enforced only if gun registration is
mandated.
Now it has been said on the floor recently that background check
legislation cannot lead to gun registries because Federal law prohibits
that. But current Federal law can be changed. And the language
currently before us requires recordkeeping, a step toward registration.
Although the sponsor of that language said that the bill expressly
provided that no registry could be created, the bill contains no such
language at present. The sponsor was misinformed about his own bill. He
admitted that the current background check language was not yet ready
for consideration and needed clarifications that so far have not been
forthcoming.
We should have answers to these and other questions before we should
proceed to the bill.
And we should be wary of going to a bill when various senators have
announced their intention to offer amendments to that bill that in my
judgment raise serious constitutional questions under the second
amendment.
Mr. President, how can we responsibly proceed to a bill that contains
language that even its sponsor admits is not ready for consideration?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, would the Senator yield?
Mr. LEE. I yield to the Senator.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that upon the
conclusion of the comments by the distinguished Senator from Utah, I be
recognized.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. LEE. I appreciate the cooperation and friendship of the senior
Senator from Vermont.
Mr. President, yesterday on the floor I discussed an initiative I
launched this week called Protect2A to give voice to the millions of
second amendment supporters around the United States who are very
concerned about Congress enacting any new gun control measures.
I am pleased to announce that we now have over 3,000 responses from
citizens all across this country who are sharing their stories, their
experiences, and their opinions about why they feel we should do
everything in our power to protect their second amendment rights. I had
only a brief time to share some of those stories yesterday and wish to
use a few minutes today to share a few more.
Kathy from the State of Virginia writes:
[[Page S2577]]
My husband and I are senior citizens. He is a veteran of
the U.S. Army. Over the past several years, we have seen our
constitutional rights trampled and twisted, until we no
longer trust that our government has our well-being as its
primary concern. Last year, for the first time in our lives,
we bought a gun, not only to ensure our safety against
criminals, but to protect and defend our God-given rights as
citizens. The most basic right of all mankind, the right to
life itself, no longer exists in this country. Protecting our
rights, the few the government has left us, is of the utmost
importance to us and we will do everything necessary to hold
onto those rights, regardless of the source of the threats
against them. God bless America.
Emily from Pennsylvania writes:
I am 19 years old and I want to protect myself as soon as I
am legal to. As a young female living in Allentown, PA, I
don't like walking in the city because I'm afraid of
something happening to me. I believe in the power of the
Constitution and especially my second amendment rights. I am
a strong conservative who believes that the Constitution is
our guiding power and not the cronyism that seems to blanket
DC. The founding fathers knew what they were doing. As soon
as I am legal, I want to take gun safety classes and purchase
a handgun of my very own. I like to think that I can protect
my own life as well as another person whose life may be in
danger. Gun control doesn't solve anything. Criminals will
get guns no matter what. I want to be able to protect myself
as well as someone else. Please don't take away my second
amendment rights.
Well said, Emily.
William from Connecticut submitted the following statement:
On Tuesday, February 11, 2003, my brother was confronted by
three armed thugs in a parking lot. Out of their stolen car,
with a stolen shotgun, they tried to rob him. Much to their
surprise, my brother had his legally owned pistol (with a
legal carry permit). He thwarted this and saved his own life
and held them at bay until the police arrived. Without this
second amendment he would've been another victim to the
growing street crime that these bills do not address.
These are the rights we are trying to protect by requiring a 60-vote
threshold on any new gun control legislation. In so doing, we are
trying to prevent the ability of Members to push through legislation
before anyone has had time to read and evaluate the language and then
tell the American people what that language means for them, what the
language would mean for their rights. Unfortunately, this is exactly
what we are faced with today.
Yesterday Senators Toomey and Manchin announced a new proposal that
is widely expected to replace the current language on the background
checks in this bill. Yet, as of this morning, this very moment, not a
single Senator has been provided the legislative text of this
provision. Because the background check measure is the centerpiece of
this legislation, it is critical that we all know what is in the bill
before we vote on it.
As I have argued on this floor, in the national media, and back home
in my home State of Utah, we should not be legislating by negotiating
closed-door, backroom deals away from the eyes of the American people.
We should not be voting before we read and understand exactly how these
proposals will affect the rights of law-abiding citizens and whether we
can say with any level of certainty they will reduce crime. This is
exactly why we need more debate and why I ask my colleagues to vote no
on cloture--so Senators and the American people may fully understand
the consequences of this legislation.
To be clear, the vote we will have this morning will be to end debate
on whether the Senate should take up a bill, the very heart of which is
being concealed from the Senate and concealed from the American people
as of this very moment. Proponents say the people deserve a vote. Don't
they deserve to know what they are voting on? I think they do.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am about to suggest the absence of a
quorum for about 1 minute and ask unanimous consent that upon coming
out of the quorum, I be recognized.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10
minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, earlier this week I spoke about the need
for the Senate to consider legislation to help increase Americans'
safety by reducing gun violence. I came to the floor of the Senate and
I urged my fellow Senators to abandon efforts to filibuster proceeding
to this bill. The Senate should not have to overcome a filibuster to
respond to the call for action in response to the violence they are
experiencing.
I have the privilege of being the longest serving Member of this
body. I have watched debate on so many issues. If there were ever an
issue where all 100 of us should vote yes or no it is here.
I was encouraged by the comments of a number of Senate Republicans
that they are prepared to debate this matter and will not support this
wrongheaded filibuster. Even the Wall Street Journal editorialized
against this filibuster yesterday in a lead editorial entitled ``The
GOP's Gun Control Misfire.'' I do not agree with much of that
editorial, but I would quote this:
If conservatives want to prove their gun-control bona
fides, the way to do it is to debate the merits and vote on
the floor.
Senators should understand what is in this bill that a small minority
of Republicans are seeking to prevent the Senate from even considering.
The bill has three parts. None of them threaten the second amendment
rights, none of them call for gun confiscation or a government
registry. In fact, two of the three parts have always had bipartisan
support. With regard to the third component--the provisions closing
loopholes in our current background check system--Senators Manchin and
Toomey yesterday announced they are going to have a bipartisan
amendment for this component as well.
Since the beginning of the 113th Congress, in the months since the
tragedy in Newtown, the Judiciary Committee held three hearings and
four mark ups focused on the issue of gun violence. The Committee voted
in favor of the Leahy-Collins gun trafficking proposal that is now part
of the legislative package the Majority Leader created to allow for
Senate consideration. I described our legislation in some detail on
Monday. I thanked our Ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee,
Senator Grassley, for working with us and supporting our gun
trafficking bill. I commended Senator Collins, who has been my partner
as we have moved forward with legislation to combat illegal gun
trafficking and straw purchasers who obtain firearms to provide them to
criminals and gangs. We have been joined in that bipartisan effort by
Senators Durbin, Gillibrand, Kirk, Klobuchar, Franken, Blumenthal,
Shaheen and King. A bipartisan majority of the Judiciary Committee
voted for the Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act.
Our bill is intended to give law enforcement better and more
effective tools. It was an ATF whistleblower who testified last
Congress that the existing firearms laws are ``toothless.'' We can
create better law enforcement tools and that is what we are doing with
the Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act. We need to close this
dangerous loophole in the law that Mexican drug cartels, gangs and
other criminals have exploited for too long.
Straw purchasers circumvent the purposes of the background check
system. Straw purchasing firearms is undertaken for one reason to get a
gun into the hands of someone who is legally prohibited from having
one. We know that many guns used in criminal activities are acquired
through straw purchases.
It was a straw purchaser who enabled the brutal murders of two brave
firefighters in Webster, New York this past Christmas Eve, and it was a
straw purchaser who provided firearms to an individual who murdered a
police officer in Plymouth Township, Pennsylvania, last September.
We need a meaningful solution to this serious problem. We also
include suggestions from Senator Gillibrand to go after those who
traffic in firearms by wrongfully obtaining two or more firearms. We
worked hard to develop effective, targeted legislation that will help
combat a serious problem and that will do no harm to the
[[Page S2578]]
Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans.
Yesterday, Senator Collins, the senior Senator from Maine, and I were
able to announce another step toward consensus. We had previously been
engaged in discussions with law enforcement and victims groups. More
recently we have been engaged in discussions with the National Rifle
Association. We have agreed on modifications to the Stop Illegal
Trafficking in Firearms Act. They address all of its substantive
concerns while doing as we have always wanted to do--providing law
enforcement officials with the tools they need to investigate and
prosecute illegal gun trafficking and straw purchasing.
Senator Collins and I are both strong supporters and advocates of
second amendment rights for law-abiding Americans. We also agree that
our law enforcement officials deserve our support in their efforts to
keep guns out of the wrong hands. We worked with the NRA and are
confident that nothing in our bill infringes on the Second Amendment
rights of lawful gun owners and purchasers, while still providing a
strong new set of tools for law enforcement officials.
We protect legitimate sales and do not place unnecessary burdens on
lawful transactions. We are pleased that the NRA agrees with us that
this legislation is a focused approach to combat the destructive
practices of straw purchasing and firearms trafficking while protecting
the Second Amendment rights of Americans. Having now worked out
differences with the NRA on our bipartisan legislation that would help
keep guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals and individuals with
severe mental illnesses, and give law enforcement the tools they need
to investigate and prosecute these crimes more effectively, it seems
absurd that some Senators nonetheless persist in filibustering
consideration of our bill.
The American people expect us to stand and face our responsibilities.
Whether we like having to vote or not, we have taken an oath of office
to uphold the Constitution, to uphold our laws. Congress has to
confront the serious role that straw purchasing and gun trafficking
play in supplying criminals with firearms for illegal purposes. It is
not enough to stand on the floor of the Senate and say you are pro law
enforcement. Let's take as a given everybody is pro law enforcement,
but then give law enforcement the tools they need. The bipartisan Stop
Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act will create specific Federal
criminal statutes prohibiting the trafficking and straw purchasing of
firearms, and also strengthens other law enforcement tools to assist
those investigating these crimes. This is a common sense response to
help in the fight against gun violence.
This is a commonsense response to help in the fight against gun
violence, and it will help law enforcement. That is why law enforcement
strongly supports our bill. Yet some are seeking to filibuster it. Let
them go to law enforcement groups and say they are trying to block them
and take away the tools they need to keep every one of us safe.
Our bill protects Second Amendment rights of lawful gun owners, while
cracking down on criminals and those who would assist them. The bill
does not create a national firearms registry, nor does it place any
additional burdens on law-abiding gun owners or purchasers. It sends a
clear message that those who would buy a gun on behalf of a criminal, a
member of a drug cartel, or a domestic abuser will be held accountable.
That is why our bill is strongly supported by law enforcement. Yet that
is what some are seeking to filibuster. Congress should be confronting
the serious role that straw purchasing and gun trafficking play in
supplying criminals with firearms for illegal purposes, not ducking the
issue.
Senators are filibustering a bipartisan proposal that received
bipartisan backing of the Senate Judiciary Committee to provide some
Federal assistance to schools to create safer environments for children
and young people. There is nothing unconstitutional about that. We
should proceed to consider it and I would hope pass it so that more
school resource officers can be hired and more can be done to help and
protect our young people who are in schools around the country, where
there are supposed to be.
Finally, it is hard to understand how improving our background check
system and plugging some of the loopholes in it that allow those who
are by law prohibited from purchasing guns because they are dangerous
criminals or dangerous to themselves and others because of mental
illness justifies a filibuster. We have had background requirements for
gun purchases for decades. We have had a background check system for
decades. We have improved it repeatedly over time.
I know gun store owners in Vermont. They follow the law and conduct
background checks to block the conveyance of guns to those who should
not have them. They wonder why others who sell guns do not have to
follow these same protective rules. I agree with these responsible
business owners.
As I said, Congress should be confronting the serious role straw
purchasing and gun trafficking play in supplying criminals with
firearms for illegal purposes, not ducking the issue. Stand up and be
counted. Stand up and be counted. Don't give speeches saying you are in
favor of law enforcement but we are going to take away tools law
enforcement needs. Stand up and be counted. Stand up and be counted. If
we can all agree that criminals and those adjudicated as mentally ill
should not buy firearms, why should we not try to plug the loopholes in
the law that allow them to buy guns without background checks?
If we agree the background check system is worthwhile, should we not
try to reform its content so it can be more effective? What responsible
gun owner objects to improving the background check system? Stand up
and be counted.
At our January hearing I pointed out that Wayne LaPierre of the NRA
testified in 1999 in favor of mandatory criminal background checks for,
as he put it, ``every sale at every gun show.'' He went on to emphasize
the NRA's support for closing the loophole in the background check
system by saying--in what has become an oft-quoted remark--``no
loopholes anywhere for anyone.''
Well, of course, it is common sense to close the gun show loophole.
The Senate voted to do so in 1999. We should vote to do so again. This
time we should get it enacted. One of the ways to do so is with the
bipartisan proposal from Senators Manchin and Toomey to improve the
law, if we are able to stop this ill-conceived filibuster and get to
the bill.
Americans across this great country are looking to us for solutions
and for action, not filibustering or sloganeering. Americans are
saying: Stand up and be counted. I opened our first hearing on these
issues in January, asking Senators on both sides of the aisle to join
in the discussion as part of a collective effort to find solutions to
help assure that no family, no school, no community ever has to endure
the kind of tragedy the families at Newtown and Aurora and Oak Creek,
Tucson, Blacksburg or Columbine had to suffer.
As I emphasized throughout the committee process, the second
amendment is secure. It is going to remain secure and protected as part
of my oath of office as a Senator. In two recent cases, the Supreme
Court has confirmed that the second amendment, as the other aspects of
our Bill of Rights, secures that fundamental individual right.
Americans have the right to self-defense. They have the right to have
guns in their homes to protect their families. No one is going to take
away these rights or these guns. That second amendment right is the
foundation on which our discussion rests. They are not at risk. But we
cannot close our eyes to what is at risk: lives are at risk when
responsible people fail to set up the laws to keep the guns out of the
hands of those who will use them to commit mass murder.
So I ask my fellow Senators to focus our discussion and debate on
these proposed statutory measures intended to better protect our
children and all Americans. Ours is a free society, an open society, a
wonderful society. We should be coming together as elected
representatives of all of the American people to consider how to become
a safer and more secure society. I would have hoped all Senators from
both parties would join together in good faith to strengthen our law
enforcement efforts against gun violence and to protect public safety.
Let's focus on our
[[Page S2579]]
responsibilities to the American people.
We are the 100 Senators elected to represent more than 314 million
Americans. That is an awesome responsibility. Let's stand up to that
responsibility. We are accountable to those people. We are not
accountable to special interest groups on either the right or the left.
We are accountable to the more than 300 million Americans. Special
interest lobbies on either the left or right should not dictate what we
do. We do not need a lobby's permission to pass laws to improve public
safety. That is our responsibility.
I urge Senators to be less concerned with special interest scorecards
and more focused on fulfilling our oath to faithfully discharge the
duties of our office as Senators.
I consider myself a responsible gun owner, but I am also someone who
cherishes all of our constitutional rights. As a Senator who has sworn
an oath to uphold those rights, as a father and a grandfather, and as a
former prosecutor who has seen the results of gun violence firsthand, I
have been working to build consensus around commonsense solutions. I am
prepared to debate and vote on the measures before us. I challenge
other Senators to do the same. Do the same. Stand up and be counted.
Stand up and be counted.
A filibuster says you are not willing to take a stand; that you vote
maybe. Stand up and be counted. Have the courage. Stand up and be
counted. Then let us work together to make all Americans safer.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, yesterday I had the solemn privilege of
meeting with some of the families who lost loved ones in the Sandy Hook
shooting. As a father, I can hardly begin to comprehend the enormous
grief these individuals have suffered, losing such a young child or a
spouse or a mother in an act of what would appear to be just senseless
violence. Burying your child is something no parent should have to do.
The families and friends of the victims at Sandy Hook are owed the
dignity and respect of a transparent, good-faith effort to address gun
violence. I do believe there is common ground upon which Republicans
and Democrats can come together. The issue of mental health of the gun
owner is that common ground for me, along with enforcing current laws
that are on the books.
If there is one thread that connects the horrific series of gun
violence episodes in our country, particularly in recent times, it is
the mental illness of the shooter. In every case, the perpetrator's
mental illness should have been detected. In some instances it was
detected but not reported. These individuals should never be allowed
access to a gun. This is actually something we can and should do
something about. We need to make sure the mentally ill are getting the
help they need, not guns. As I said, this is something I believe all of
us can agree on.
In response to the tragedy at Virginia Tech in 2007, the Senate and
the Congress unanimously passed a measure to bolster mental health
reporting requirements on background checks.
Some States, such as mine, Texas, have received high marks for their
compliance. But many States have essentially been noncompliant, and the
Department of Justice has failed to adequately back implementation of
the law. So essentially the law that we passed in the wake of the
Virginia Tech shooting to require reporting of people who are actually
adjudicated mentally ill in their respective States is not working the
way it should. Rather than string along an ineffective program, I think
this is a wonderful opportunity for us to fix it. And we should fix it.
I want to say a word, though, about symbolism versus solutions. I am
not interested in Congress voting on a measure that would have no
impact on the horrific violence we have seen in recent months. I am not
interested in a symbolic gesture which would offer the families of the
Sandy Hook shooting no real solutions. They told me they are not
political. They don't come with an agenda. They are not asking us to
pass a specific piece of legislation. They just want to know that their
loved one did not die in vain, and that something good can come out of
this terrible tragedy.
So I think dealing with this mental health reporting issue is a
common ground we could come together on. But we also need to make sure
we are not just going to pass additional laws that will not be
enforced. What possible solace could that be to these families, for
Congress to pass additional laws that will never be enforced?
Take, for example, the National Instant Criminal Background Check
System--the NIC system, as it is called--which flags people who lie on
their background check. The annual number of cases referred for
prosecution fell sharply during the first 2 years of the current
President's term of office. Indeed, there was a 58-percent drop in
referrals and a 70-percent drop in prosecutions for people who lie on
the background check. We can fix this.
Let's make sure that guns aren't getting into the hands of people who
we all agree should not have them. We could be doing this right now
with broad bipartisan support.
Let me conclude with a couple of observations about where we find
ourselves with an 11 o'clock vote on an underlying bill which remains
controversial and which I think the majority leader and all of us know
has very little chance, if any, of going anywhere.
We heard yesterday that our colleagues from West Virginia and Ohio
have come together on a bipartisan background check bill. I asked my
staff as recently as on my way over here whether the language had been
released so we could actually read it and find out what is in it, and
it has not. We have no commitment in front of the Senate by the
majority leader that there will be a robust debate and amendment
process, because there are a lot of amendments that need to be offered
to whatever that so-far-unwritten bill says, I am sure. And we need to
have a full, robust, transparent discussion of this issue in front of
the American people.
So I am not going to vote to proceed to a bill that has not yet been
written, no matter how well intentioned it may be. We need to make sure
that what we do is address the cause of this violence, and to come up
not with symbolic gestures that will have no impact or to pass other
laws that will not be enforced but to come together with real
solutions. Rather than put on a show and pat ourselves on the back and
call it a day, let's do something good to make sure we have done
everything in our human capacity to prevent another Sandy Hook. This is
what these families want. This is what they deserve. And this is what
the American people deserve.
This calls on the Senate to exercise its historic and its central
role in bringing all sides together to try to come up with solutions.
But if we can't do that here, if we can't do that now, when will we
ever address this tragedy?
The President has told some of these victims' families that this side
of the aisle doesn't care about their loss. That is not true. That is
false. The President is wrong. All of us care about these families. All
of us should care about violence in our communities, and we should try
to work together to find ways to address this--not in a symbolic sort
of way but in a real way that offers a solution and maybe a little bit
of progress on this issue that would allow these families to say, no,
my loved one did not die in vain; something good came out of this. We
want to work together to find real solutions to this type of senseless,
incomprehensible violence that has taken too many lives. I hope we
will.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
[[Page S2580]]
Cloture Motion
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, pursuant
to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending motion to
invoke cloture.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 32, S. 649, a bill to ensure that all
individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm
are listed in the national instant criminal background check
for every firearm sale, and for other purposes.
Harry Reid, Patrick J. Leahy, Robert Menendez, Sheldon
Whitehouse, Jeff Merkley, Christopher A. Coons,
Benjamin L. Cardin, Barbara Boxer, Debbie Stabenow,
Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Richard J. Durbin, Patty Murray,
Jack Reed, Dianne Feinstein, Richard Blumenthal,
Christopher Murphy, Elizabeth Warren
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. By unanimous consent, the mandatory
quorum call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
motion to proceed to S. 649, a bill to ensure that all individuals who
should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the national
instant criminal background check system and require a background check
for every firearm sale, and for other purposes shall be brought to a
close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. The clerk will call
the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the
Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 68, nays 31, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 95 Leg.]
YEAS--68
Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Baucus
Bennet
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coburn
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cowan
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Flake
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Hagan
Harkin
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Hoeven
Isakson
Johnson (SD)
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NAYS--31
Barrasso
Begich
Blunt
Boozman
Coats
Cochran
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Enzi
Fischer
Grassley
Hatch
Inhofe
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Lee
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Pryor
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Vitter
NOT VOTING--1
Lautenberg
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore.
On this vote, the yeas are 68, the nays are 31. Three-fifths of the
Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the
motion is agreed to.
The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I appreciate everyone's cooperation. I am
glad we were able to get cloture on this legislation. This legislation
and this vote that just took place are, of course, important for our
country, especially for the people from Connecticut who have lived
through their tragedy. But it is also important for this body, this
Senate. There have been many things written in the last several months
about how the Senate cannot operate. And I so appreciate the Members on
the other side of the aisle--especially John McCain on a Sunday show
who said: I don't think there should be a filibuster on this. John
McCain is a leader and has been a leader in this country for 31 years
and people respect his opinion. I am grateful to all Republicans who
joined with us to allow this debate to go forward.
The hard work starts now. As everyone knows, because we have all
heard this on a number of occasions, the first amendment is going to be
one that has been worked on for weeks by Senator Manchin, Senator
Toomey, and Senator Kirk. That will be the first amendment. We expect
to lay that down later today. I hope there will be no efforts to
continue this filibuster with the 30 hours. There is no reason we
shouldn't get to legislating.
We have an important lunch, as everyone knows. We are going to finish
that lunch, and I hope we can come back and lay down this amendment and
start some debate on it. I have indicated to Senators Toomey and
Manchin--they want to spend a lot of time because they have to get
prepared for what they are going to do beginning Tuesday morning--and I
said that is fine. In the meantime, there are other things we can do on
this legislation.
We know there are other amendments, and I hope no one is going to
say, Well, I am going to filibuster every amendment that is offered.
That defeats the whole purpose of why we are here. We can't allow that
to happen. It would be such a shame if that, in fact, did happen.
We are going to have an open amendment process, meaning Senators are
going to be able to offer amendments. One thing we can't do is have
pending scores of amendments and we are not going to do that. We need
to make this debate so people understand what is going on.
There are certain things we are going to have to vote on here. We are
going to have to vote on the Manchin-Toomey amendment. We are going to
have to have a vote on assault weapons. Some people love it, some
people hate it, but we are going to have to have a vote on it. We are
also going to have to have a vote on the size of clips or magazines.
Those are the only votes I am going to make sure we have. Other than
that, we should have amendments. If people think the present law is too
weak, they can change that or if people think it is too strong, have
some amendments to change that. We cannot have just a few Senators
spoiling everything for everyone here. This is the time we should lay
down amendments and see if we can pass them. We can set up procedures
here, as we have done, to make sure everyone is heard.
I can remember when I had to meet with the families from Newtown. To
be very honest, I didn't want to, but I did. I met them over here in
room 219. That was a hard meeting, because everyone knows how I have
approached things in the past with regard to these matters now before
us. I am like virtually everyone in America: The events of the last few
months have been very tragic--people going to a movie theater to watch
a movie and they are gunned down, and more would have been gunned down
but for the fact that the man's 100-clip magazine jammed. Newtown, we
have all seen the pictures that are not here today of those babies who
were shot, more than once. So America has a different view of this
violence than they did just a little while ago.
We all believe in the Constitution. We all know what all of these
amendments are about and what they are supposed to do and we are going
to make sure that during this debate we keep the Constitution in mind.
The families of the most recent tragedy in Newtown deserve a debate,
because these people from Newtown who are the survivors of this tragedy
are representing everybody in America. That is why we need this debate.
The Senate is going to give these family members, friends, and people
who live in Newtown, no matter how long it takes, the ability to see
how people stand on these issues. So the Senate is going to give them
votes. We hope it will be sooner rather than later, but we are going to
work through this.
Senators on both sides have amendments they want to offer. We have
our most experienced Senator, who has been here longer than anyone
else, managing this bill, Senator Leahy of Vermont. He has always been
a fair man and he will continue to be. He knows there are a few
amendments that have to go forward, but after that we are going to be
as deliberative as we can to make sure people have the opportunity to
offer amendments.
I repeat, after we get through the Manchin-Toomey amendment, the
assault weapons, and the high-capacity
[[Page S2581]]
magazines, we are going to make sure everyone has the opportunity, and
the Republicans can catch up. We can have the first amendment, the
Toomey-Manchin amendment--I don't know if it is a Democratic amendment
or a Republican amendment, but that is the first one we are going to
do. After we get through these two things, we will have the
Republicans. If they are two or three behind, they can catch up with us
and then we can alternate back and forth. Even though there is no rule
requiring it, that is the best way to move forward.
I am grateful to everyone we are here and able to start legislating
on this issue that has caught the attention of the American people and,
frankly, the world.
Order For Recess
Mr. President, we are having a joint meeting. I ask unanimous consent
the Senate recess from 12:30 until 2:30 today to allow for a joint
caucus meeting, and that all time during recess and morning business
count postcloture on the motion to proceed to S. 649.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. REID. I note the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, before I make a statement relative to an
unrelated issue, I just want to say a very quick word about the
historic vote that took place a few minutes ago on the floor of the
Senate. I believe we had 16 Republicans who joined us in an effort to
proceed to a bill that will initiate a debate--one of the first in
years--on the floor of the Senate about gun safety in America.
I salute those Members of the Senate from both sides of the aisle who
supported that motion to proceed, but especially from the other side. I
know it took a great deal of courage, political courage, for them to
step up and to at least initiate this debate. I will tell you, there
were those among them--some 13--who signed a letter saying: We are
going to filibuster this matter to stop it. They did not succeed today
in that effort because 16 on the Republican side joined us. I do not
presume they are going to vote for all or any of the amendments to be
offered. But at least they allowed the Senate to be the Senate instead
of having us bogged down--as we have over 400 times in the last 6
years--in a filibuster.
I hope during the course of this debate on the floor we are able to
have amendments debated and voted on. The majority leader made that
request earlier, and I believe, for the good of this Senate--and
certainly for the debt we owe to America to address the issues of the
day--we should address them in a bipartisan fashion in courteous but
thorough debate. That is what the Senate has stood for as an
institution, and I hope it does, and continues to.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning
business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Durbin and Mr. Coons pertaining to the
introduction of S. 718 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements
on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. COONS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________