[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 51 (Tuesday, April 16, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2663-S2666]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SAFE COMMUNITIES, SAFE SCHOOLS ACT OF 2013
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of S. 649, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 649) 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.
Pending:
Manchin amendment No. 715, to protect Second Amendment
rights, ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited
from buying a firearm are listed in the National Instant
Criminal Background Check System, and provide a responsible
and consistent background check process.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 12:30
p.m. will be for debate only.
The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am glad we are proceeding on this very
important legislation. The American people might be wondering why the
Senate has not been voting on any amendments to the pending gun
legislation.
The Senate voted on Thursday to proceed to the bill. This followed
calls that the Senate should debate the bill, and that is why I said I
am glad we are getting to it. There has been very little debate. The
President has said various proposals deserve a vote. We, on this side
of the aisle, don't intend to stand in the way of proceeding on those
votes, particularly on the amendments. So I hope we are able to vote
very soon.
Last week Senator Manchin and Senator Toomey unveiled an amendment on
background checks. The media hailed the agreement as a way to pass gun
control. The majority announced that the Manchin-Toomey amendment would
be the first one we vote on. Since we are just starting the debate now,
obviously we have not voted on the amendment.
We have not voted because despite claims from the other side,
background checks are not and never have been the sweet spot of the gun
control debate. We have not voted on it because supporters don't have
the votes to pass it--at least at this point that is the way it appears
to me--and I think they know it.
They don't have the votes even though published reports indicate that
Vice President Biden, the President of the Senate, has been calling
Senators and asking them to support the Manchin-Toomey bill. They must
not be telling him what he wants to hear. They don't have the votes for
background checks even though the Vice President has reportedly stated
that the opposition to the proposal comes only from the ``black
helicopter'' crowd.
Well, it doesn't come from that point.
The Manchin-Toomey amendment would impose new obligations on law-
abiding gun owners. It would do so even though expanding gun background
checks would have done nothing to stop Newtown or other mass killings.
It would do so even though expanding background checks would do nothing
to prevent these killings in the future.
I often quote the Deputy Director of the National Institute of
Justice, who recently wrote that background checks could work only if
they were universal and were accompanied by gun registration. Of
course, most Members of the Senate oppose gun registration. They know
what has happened historically with gun registration. In other
countries it has led to gun confiscation, and Members of the Senate--
but more importantly, lots of people appearing at our town meetings--
fear that could happen and don't want to go down that road.
Supporters of the background check amendment claim that it
strengthens the rights of gun owners; but, in fact, it does not. The
fact is the opposite is true. Opposition to the amendment does not come
from the fringe elements of society. In fact, one of the reasons the
Senate has not voted on the amendment is the widespread opposition to
the amendment from many quarters. If only fringe elements had problems
with it, we would be voting on this amendment. So keep watching. If we
do not vote on the Manchin-Toomey amendment, it means the proponents of
that idea know they don't have the votes to pass it. If we turn to
assault weapons or magazines, then it is clear to all that the majority
knows it is far from the number of votes they need. I think people are
going to be waiting while they try to pick up the votes that will
probably never be there.
Meanwhile, on this side of the aisle, our caucus hopes to have their
amendments considered soon and to vote on those amendments. Our
amendments, unlike the Manchin-Toomey amendment, will actually
strengthen the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners and
help thwart gun violence by criminals. In fact, there are reports that
the other side of the aisle wants to block one of our amendments which
would do exactly that.
So that is the situation. Maybe there are leaders around here who
would dispute me, but that is the way I see it. The majority doesn't
have the votes to pass their amendment, so we are not voting. The
majority wants to block Republican amendments that they fear would
pass, so we are not voting on the Republican amendments either.
[[Page S2664]]
The Senate voted to proceed to the bill. The Senate voted to have a
debate. The Senate was promised an open amendment process which would
mean we would conduct votes on the various amendments that will be
offered, but so far that has not happened. I hope it will happen soon,
so I ask that the audience stay tuned.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we are debating one of the most important
bills we have had before the Senate in a long time. The reason we are
debating this subject is because of what happened in Newtown, CT, on
December 14, and the gun violence that takes its toll every day in
cities all across America, including in my home State of Illinois. We
know because we read and hear about it in the news and from the
victims.
At this moment our Nation is saddened by what happened yesterday in
Boston. We still don't know what the cause of that was or who was
responsible for it. I just have to say we are stunned by it.
Members of the Senate and I--who have worked on the immigration
bill--had planned to announce that bill today in a press conference. We
have postponed that announcement out of respect to the people who have
fallen, those who were injured, and their families. It is a moment of
grave concern across America which was expressed well by the President
last night.
We are waiting for the information and details to build a case on
those who are responsible. I, for one--and I am sure my colleagues feel
the same way--don't want to rush to judgment until we have the facts as
to the parties responsible. The sadness we feel for the victims and the
sadness we feel for America--an open and free America where people
stand on the sidelines cheering marathon runners--is one that is
profound in the Senate today.
The issue before us now is gun safety. It comes before us because 20
beautiful little first graders were massacred at their grade school--at
Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT. Six of their teachers and
administrators literally gave their lives in defense of those children.
There is not a parent or grandparent alive who doesn't identify with
that horrible loss.
Last week I met with a group of parents, still grieving, from Sandy
Hook Elementary School who came to Congress to beg us to do something
to spare future families and future children from this type of
massacre. I met with them in the morning. As you can imagine, there was
not a dry eye in the room as they showed me the photographs of their
beautiful children who are now gone. I commend them for their courage
and stepping forward.
Now the question is whether the Senate has the courage to step
forward. This is not an easy vote politically. I think we know what is
at stake. I come from a pretty diverse State. I come from downstate
Illinois, which is more rural. They have small towns and more gun
owners than the great city of Chicago.
For 14 years, as a Congressman in downstate Illinois, I ran in an
area where gun issues were very volatile and very important to many
people. I took some positions which the gun lobby did not care for, and
several times they decided they would wage a campaign against me when I
ran for reelection. I survived their attacks and eventually was elected
to the Senate.
This is the first meaningful gun safety legislation we have taken up
since I was elected to this body over 16 years ago. We are here because
of what happened in Newtown, CT. There is no question about it.
I often remind people that it was a little over 2 years ago that one
of our own, Gabrielle Giffords, a Congresswoman from Arizona, was at a
town meeting when she was gunned down and shot pointblank in the face.
We did nothing about it. There were no hearings or changes in the law.
It was just another gun statistic to many people.
But Newtown touched our hearts: to think that those beautiful little
children could be massacred in their grade school classroom. One child
was shot 11 times with a semiautomatic weapon that was firing off
rounds as fast as this deranged individual could load it.
We are here today in the beginning of a debate on this important
legislation. What is at stake? Well, this is about background checks.
Here are the basic questions we need to ask: Do we believe the current
Federal law, which prohibits a convicted felon, a person who is under
an order from the court to avoid domestic abuse, a person who has been
judged mentally incompetent--should they be able to buy a gun in
America?
Now, 90 percent of Americans say that is an easy question, and the
answer is, no; they should not be able to buy a gun. In fact, 75
percent of gun owners say that.
I come from a family of gun owners. They are responsible, law-abiding
citizens who would never dream of looking the other way if a convicted
felon or mentally deranged person wanted to buy a gun. They store their
guns safely. They use them in a safe manner, and they represent the
majority of gun owners across America.
So if this is such an obvious question where 90 percent of Americans
agree we should not sell guns to those who have been convicted of a
felony, for example, why is this being debated? What is the big deal?
It comes down to the second part of the question: What would you
think--and this Capitol is filled with tourists, many of whom flew on
airplanes to get here today--if before the plane took off, the flight
attendant said: Welcome aboard; fasten your seatbelts. We hope everyone
has a safe flight. Incidentally, the TSA would like to inform everyone
that they have closely checked the passengers onboard the plane to see
if they are carrying guns or bombs. We are happy to report we have
checked 60 percent of them, and they are not carrying guns or bombs.
Have a nice flight.
Sixty percent--does that give anybody refuge, consolation, or peace
of mind? That is what is going on today with the sale of guns. Up to
forty percent of firearms sold in America today are not subject to
background checks.
What difference does that make? I want to tell the story which goes
back to a moment in history in my State of Illinois which illustrates
why this is so important. Ricky Byrdsong was the head coach of the
Northwestern University men's basketball team back in the 1990s. He was
a great fellow. He was a loving father of three children and a man of
deep Christian faith.
On July 2, 1999, Coach Byrdsong was walking with two of his children
through his neighborhood in Skokie, IL, a great town. A White
supremacist drove up and shot Ricky Byrdsong to death in front of his
kids. He was 43 years old.
This gunman ended up going on a shooting spree for days across
Illinois and Indiana, randomly targeting African Americans, Jews, and
Asian Americans. In the end, he killed two and wounded nine.
Here is the reality. The man who did the shooting never, ever should
have owned a gun. He was prohibited by law from buying guns because of
a domestic violence restraining order against him. Before his murderous
rampage, he tried to buy a gun from a federally licensed dealer in
Peoria Heights, IL. He was rejected when it was revealed he was
prohibited from purchasing a gun. But this white supremacist took
advantage of a gap in our background check laws that still exists
today. He found an advertisement for guns in the classified ad section
of a newspaper.
A gun trafficker named Donald Fiessinger had been buying guns from a
dealer--over 72 guns in a 2-year period--then turning around and
reselling them through classified ads to buyers who wouldn't have to go
through a background check. Ricky Byrdsong's killer bought two handguns
from Fiessinger without a background check. He then used those guns on
a shooting spree and killed Ricky Byrdsong on the streets of Skokie in
front of his children.
The amendment before us today would make that more difficult, if not
impossible. Under the Manchin-Toomey amendment, a background check
would be required to sell guns advertised in a newspaper. This would
have shut down the opportunity for Ricky Byrdsong's killer to get this
murderous weapon. That is one of the issues before us, and it is
critically important.
Joe Manchin is from West Virginia. Joe Manchin is a conservative
Democrat, no question about it; no debate on that issue. Pat Toomey is
one of the
[[Page S2665]]
most conservative Republicans from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
The two of them came together and said, Let's write something that is
respectful of the Second Amendment, respectful of the rights of gun
owners, but closes the gaps in the law when it comes to background
checks. I think they have done a good job. But let me add quickly they
put some things in this amendment I don't like at all. Let me be
specific.
The amendment repeals the law that prevents gun dealers from selling
handguns to out-of-State buyers, and it expands civil immunity to
unlicensed gun dealers. I don't want to vote for those two things, but
this is the nature of a compromise and this is the nature of the
Senate. If we are going to pass this, I have to be prepared to take on
and accept some issues I personally don't agree with because of the
larger good. To me, the notion of plugging this 40-percent gap in the
sale of firearms is so compelling I am prepared to accept parts of this
amendment I don't like. I am never going to get exactly what I want on
the floor of the Senate, nor will any Senator, nor should they expect
to. We have differences of opinion, differences of party, differences
of philosophy.
I commend Senators Manchin and Toomey for stepping up. This wasn't
easy. They could have stepped back and said, Let somebody else do this.
They haven't. I know they have taken some grief over it. The major gun
lobby organizations oppose this Manchin-Toomey amendment, but we need
to do this. Would it have saved the lives of those children at Newtown,
CT? No. This measure would not have, because the guns he used were
purchased by his mother who could legally purchase the guns. But it
could have saved the life of Ricky Byrdsong and it could also save the
lives of so many others who are being gunned down on the streets
because people are owning and using guns who have no legal right to
them. The Manchin-Toomey amendment moves us in the direction of closing
that gap in the law.
I know the gun lobby opposes this amendment. I don't know what their
position is on the underlying bill, but I know that Americans and gun
owners overwhelmingly support it. So here is the question: Can the
Senate rise above the political pressure and vote for this measure? We
need 60 votes, and it means it has to be bipartisan, not just the
majority on this side of the aisle, but a good number on the other
side.
I am encouraged by last week's vote because last week we had a
preliminary vote, a procedural vote, about whether we were even going
to debate this issue, and there was a question about it. Before the
vote came up, 13 Republican Senators, supported by the Republican
minority leader, sent a public letter saying they were going to oppose
any effort to even debate the gun issue on the floor of the Senate. It
looked pretty bad when the Republican leader took that position. But 16
Republican Senators stepped up and showed, I thought, courage and a
commitment to this institution by voting with us to move forward on
this debate. I am not assuming their votes on any issues, but I want to
commend them in the spirit of this institution which has failed in
recent years to accept its mandate and deliberate and vote on the most
important issues of our time. I commend them for remembering that and
for committing themselves to at least engaging in this debate on the
floor of the Senate.
What about background checks and the Second Amendment? Well, the gun
lobby argues that background checks are unconstitutional, even though
Justice Scalia made it clear in the Heller decision, which was the
decision on the Second Amendment that said, basically, the Second
Amendment is a personal right to bear arms, not the right of a militia,
which had been argued for years. Scalia said in that decision: ``laws
imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms''
are ``presumptively lawful.'' So there is no doubt, at least in Justice
Scalia's mind or mine, that a background check is consistent with the
Second Amendment.
The gun lobby also argues that background checks are ineffective. We
have heard this argument: Well, go ahead and pass all the laws you want
and all the law-abiding citizens will live by them but the criminals
won't. Here is what they failed to note. Nearly 2 million prohibited
purchasers have been blocked from buying a gun since background checks
went into effect. They were so stupid, so careless, they tried to buy a
gun anyway. They were stopped. The argument, of course, then goes:
Well, why are there so many gun crimes committed? Well, because they
get guns through other means which are also addressed by the bill.
Straw purchases, for example; or through the ads in the newspaper I
mentioned earlier. And the argument that unless a law is air tight and
will stop all gun violence we shouldn't pass it--are we going to use
that standard for speeding on highways or for texting on highways? I
don't think so. We do our best to set a reasonable standard for the
good of this society, understanding there will be those who violate the
law. The same thing holds true for this argument.
The gun lobby argues we should not improve background checks until we
prosecute more cases where buyers fail their background checks. Well,
what of the agency that gathers information for that prosecution--ATF
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives? If we look to
that agency, we will note that for years now the gun lobby and the NRA
have worked to keep this as a leaderless agency and to make sure it
didn't have the power to enforce the laws on the books. They can't have
it both ways. They can't stop the ATF from its job and then argue they
don't prosecute these gun violations seriously.
Here is the bottom line: We are going to have votes soon to see where
Members of the Senate stand. Are they going to stand with our police
officers, religious leaders, teachers, prosecutors, doctors, mayors,
and the victims of gun violence and their families? Are they going to
stand with the strong majority of 90 percent of Americans who support
these reform proposals to save lives in this country? Or, will they
stand with the gun lobby that refuses to compromise even when lives
could be saved?
I know where I am going to stand. I am going to stand with Ricky
Byrdsong's family and his widow Sherialyn. She wrote me earlier this
year when I held a hearing on gun violence and this is what she said:
How a criminal is able to buy a gun with no questions asked
is absurd. Something must be done about this.
An important question from an important person whose life was changed
forever because we do not have a strong law. I stand with so many other
families who have suffered tragedy, including those families from
Newtown who were here last week, as well as the families and the
victims in my hometown of East St. Louis, IL, and the city of Chicago I
am honored to represent. They are sick and tired of the gun lobby that
puts industry profits before common sense and they are tired of the gun
lobby having its way in Congress year after deadly year.
I urge my colleagues to join with the majority of Americans who
support commonsense reforms for gun safety. I urge my colleagues to
support the compromise Manchin-Toomey amendment and the bipartisan
legislation on the Senate floor.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the period for debate only on
the firearms bill, S. 649, be extended until 3:30 p.m. and that I be
recognized at that time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. We will continue to work on getting an agreement setting
forth some initial amendments and votes in relation to the gun safety
legislation. The Republican leaders said they needed to have their
caucus first. We are hopeful that we will receive a positive response
to our efforts soon after the two caucus lunches and begin moving
forward on some initial amendments and votes in relation to gun safety
legislation.
[[Page S2666]]
____________________