[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 52 (Wednesday, April 17, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2729-S2744]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SAFE COMMUNITIES, SAFE SCHOOLS ACT OF 2013--Continued
amendment no. 715
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, given the importance of this debate, I
believe it is important for me to explain why I am supporting amendment
No. 715, offered by Senators Manchin and Toomey, to S. 649, the Safe
Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013.
Like all Americans, my heart goes out to the people of Newtown,
Connecticut; Aurora, Colorado; Tucson, Arizona, and all other cities
and towns impacted by senseless gun violence. These tragic events are
impossible to fully comprehend unless you were there and extremely
difficult to relate to unless you experience the effects personally.
The rest of us are left with more questions than answers, and
differing--albeit well-intentioned--solutions designed to preserve our
way of life while doing our best to ensure these horrible events are
less likely tomorrow.
As everyone is aware, in January of 2011, the citizens of my home
State--as well as people around the country and world--were shocked and
horrified by the senseless violence of a severely disturbed young man
with a gun. Six people were killed and 13 injured. One of those victims
was a bright young Congressional staffer named Gabe Zimmerman, who was
highly regarded by his colleagues and had a future filled only with
promise. Yesterday, here in the Capitol at a room dedication for Gabe
Zimmerman, we were provided with a very real portrait of a man who was
doing what he loved, serving the people of Arizona, when his life was
tragically cut short. I think his father's comments are worth repeating
today. Ross Zimmerman, Gabe's father, said:
An echo of Gabriel will persist, perhaps for centuries. It
isn't worth the loss, but the echo is good and true. . . . I
ask that you and our descendents take inspiration from my
son's echo as you conduct the affairs of this Congress and
the affairs of this nation.
Another life impacted by those tragic events is that of Congresswoman
Gabrielle Giffords. Her life, while still filled with great promise,
was unalterably changed that fateful day. Congresswoman Giffords, and
her loving husband Captain Mark Kelly--who are both with us here in
Washington today to witness this debate--reflect the determination of
the American spirit and are beautiful examples of how good really does
triumph over evil.
Gabby, Mark and the countless other examples of heroism and
resilience that America witnessed in Tucson, Aurora, Newtown and
elsewhere around the Nation, are clear reminders of why we are all here
serving, and the gravity of the issues we are asked to address. Their
presence here today further reminds us that we are here to serve a
cause greater than our own self-interest. There is nothing like looking
in the eyes of a still-grieving parent who has just lost a young son or
daughter to remind you of that fact.
[[Page S2730]]
For over three decades in Congress, I have built as strong a record
as anyone in this body in defending the Second Amendment. I have
consistently opposed the efforts of anti-gun activists to ban guns and
ammunition, staunchly defending the Constitutional rights that
Arizonans hold dear. I have voted against assault weapons bans because
I believed they would not work and opposed efforts to cripple firearms
manufacturers by making them liable for the acts of violent criminals.
I have proudly lent my signature to Supreme Court briefs defending an
individual's right to bear arms. In my view, the wisdom of our Framers'
inclusion of the right to bear arms is self-evident. And as an
Arizonan, I understand the significance of gun ownership to the people
of the West, whether for self-defense, sport, or simple ownership.
Just as I have long defended the Second Amendment to the
Constitution, I have also long believed that it is perfectly reasonable
to use available tools to conduct limited background checks, as this
amendment prescribes, to help ensure that felons and the mentally-ill
do not obtain guns they should not possess. In my view, such background
checks are not overly burdensome or unconstitutional.
Is this a perfect solution? No. Would it prevent all future acts of
gun violence? Of course not. Would it have prevented the most recent
acts of gun violence? In all likelihood, no. But, it is reasonable and
it is constitutional.
I approach the issue of gun rights with profound respect for our
Constitution, and the freedoms and rights that it bestows on each and
every one of us. I am also guided by a firm commitment that we should
do everything we can, within the bounds of the Constitution and the
principles of individual rights and federalism on which it is based, to
stem the rising tide of gun violence in this country. In this instance,
neither the United States Supreme Court nor the lower Federal courts
have held that restrictions on possession for certain classes of
individuals violate the Second Amendment. In Heller v. District of
Columbia, the Court held that the Second Amendment protects an
individual right to a well-armed militia. In his Majority opinion,
Justice Scalia observed:
Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on
longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying
of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and
government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and
qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
In this instance, I agree with Justice Scalia that a background check
system is not a restriction of the Second Amendment right to keep arms.
The issue is plain to me because a background check system only seeks
to ensure that sellers of firearms do not transfer guns to a prohibited
class of owners. Restrictions on ownership by certain classes of people
have existed in federal law for 45 years and have not been
constitutionally invalidated by the courts.
In addition to Constitutional concerns, many have expressed concerns
about the establishment of a national gun registry. If this amendment
would establish such a registry, I would oppose it. But, it does not.
In fact, the amendment reinforces the existing Federal ban of a
national firearms registry. The amendment explicitly states, ``Nothing
in this title, or any amendment made by this title, shall be construed
to allow the establishment, directly or indirectly, of a Federal
firearms registry.'' But, the amendment does not stop there. It would
also provide for a harsh penalty of 15 years for any person who
attempts to create a registry and re-affirms that any regulations
issued by the Department of Justice to ensure criminals and the
mentally ill do not obtain firearms cannot create a firearms registry.
Mr. President, every once in a while I have seen some acts of
political courage and quite often we praise each other and ourselves,
directly or indirectly, for the positions we take and the votes we
pass. I wish to take a moment and express my appreciation to the two
sponsors of this amendment, Senator Manchin and Senator Toomey. Both
come from States where there are avid and dedicated and legitimate gun
rights advocates. It would have been easier for both Senator Manchin
and Senator Toomey to ignore this situation and not reach across the
aisle to each other to see if we could come up with what I think most
Americans--in fact, I have seen polls indicating that 80 percent of the
American people--support, reasonable background checks that do not
infringe on the constitutional rights of our citizens. I congratulate
both Senator Manchin and Senator Toomey for taking this position.
You may not win today, I say to my two colleagues, but I will say
that you did the right thing. You did the right thing. It has been my
experience, as a Senator in this body for some years who has not always
done the right thing, that doing the right thing is always a reward in
itself.
Sooner or later this country will take up this issue and it will take
up the mentally ill issue, and I hope it will take up Hollywood
violence, and I hope it will take up those programs that may incite
young people to go out and want to acquire a weapon and use it. But
what they have tried to do today I think is an act that should be
appreciated by those of us who, many times, avoid taking the tough
decisions. I think they are an example to all of us.
I yield.
Mr. MANCHIN. Will the Senator yield?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. MANCHIN. Will the Senator yield for a second? Let me say to
Senator McCain, I thank the Senator. I truly do. Because with the
Senator's truly busy schedule--and everybody knows in how many
directions you are pulled and how you are working--he took time to read
it. He took time to see we did not invade anybody's private
transactions. He took time to see that basically we had a Commission on
Mass Violence that would look at the culture of violence in our
country. I can only thank the Senator. For someone with the stature of
the Senator in this body, to take the time to go through that bill word
by word and know that it does protect our Second Amendment rights, it
does the things we try to do in a comprehensive way, I want to say
thank you.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank my colleague.
Amendment No. 730
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment which is at the
desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], for himself, Mr.
Alexander, Mr. Franken, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Bennet, Mr.
Roberts, Ms. Baldwin, Ms. Ayotte, Mrs. Hagan, Mr. Murphy, and
Mr. Blumenthal proposes an amendment numbered 730.
Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text
of Amendments.'')
Today, I offer this bipartisan amendment with my colleague Senator
Alexander and several other members from the Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions Committee to reauthorize and improve programs administered
by both the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services
related to awareness, prevention, and early identification of mental
health conditions, and the promotion of linkages to appropriate
services for children and youth.
The tragic shooting in Newtown, CT, in December brought the issue of
mental health care to the forefront of public dialogue. Many people
across the nation, including the President, have said that we need to
take a long hard look at access to mental health services across the
country. I was pleased to have the opportunity to start that dialogue
with my colleagues on the HELP Committee in January when we held a
hearing to examine the state of our Nation's mental health care system.
A starting point of any conversation about mental health is
recognizing that one of the most insidious stereotypes about people
with mental illness is that they are inherently violent. It is deeply
regrettable that some of the discussion in the wake of the Newtown
tragedy has sadly reinforced this stereotype. As my colleagues in the
Senate know and as the President has emphasized, people with mental
illness
[[Page S2731]]
are much more likely to be victims of violent crimes than they are to
be perpetrators of acts of violence.
However, for too long, mental health care has not been at the
forefront of public dialogue, despite the fact that mental illness
affects one in four Americans every year, and serious mental illness
affects 1 in 17. Unfortunately, there is still a stigma associated with
mental illness, and that stigma results in too many people suffering in
silence without access to the care that could significantly improve
their lives.
Unlike many other chronic diseases, mental health problems often
begin at a young age. Half of all mental illnesses manifest by age 14,
with another quarter appearing by the age of 24. However, less than
half of the children with an identified mental health illness receive
treatment, and the average lag time from the first onset of symptoms to
receiving treatment is almost a decade.
This lack of treatment has huge consequences. Some 30,000 Americans
die by suicide each year, and it is a shocking fact that people with
serious mental illness die 25 years earlier than Americans overall,
often from treatable causes like diabetes and smoking-related chronic
conditions.
The shame in this is that with access to the right treatments and
supports, most people with mental illnesses can recover and lead
productive, healthy lives. But we need to make the critical investments
that will enable this to happen, and this amendment is about making
those investments.
In the past several years, we have made two important steps forward
in mental health care. First, in 2008 Congress passed the Paul
Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity
Act. This long-overdue law put an end to the absurd practice of
treating mental and physical illness as two different things under
health insurance. We followed this up with another important step
forward in the Affordable Care Act, by requiring coverage for mental
health and substance use disorders as an essential benefit in health
insurance plans and extending Federal parity protections to 62 million
Americans.
Building on these important insurance reforms, we started working in
the HELP Committee a few months ago to put together a targeted package
to address some of the most pressing mental health care challenges in
schools and communities. And last week, the HELP Committee unanimously
passed and reported out the Mental Health Awareness and Improvement
Act, which is this amendment.
The first title of this amendment provides a number of strategies to
make sure we are addressing the concerns of students with mental health
needs, starting with prevention and early detection. According to the
National Institutes of Mental Health, 20 percent of America's 75
million school-aged children have some mental health needs. This means
that 15 million students in our K-12 schools have some sort of mental
health need. A RAND Foundation study found that only a quarter of those
students needing mental health support received any type of services to
address their needs. That means over 11 million school-aged children
may be struggling with mental health concerns and not receiving the
support that will help them in school, in their home and in their
communities.
I worked with Senators Bennet, Alexander, and Murphy on language in
our amendment that encourages schools to develop and implement
schoolwide prevention and early intervention programs such as Positive
Behavior Interventions and Supports, PBIS. Such schoolwide programs
reach every single student in a school; every grade; every classroom.
And the programs provide students with both clear information about
what the expectations are for positive behavior and interactions, and
the support they need to be successful to meet those expectations.
Schoolwide programs such as Positive Behavior Interventions and
Supports are important, but we also know that schools often lack
sufficient mental health services for students who need more
comprehensive services. We also need to help schools link to mental
health services. An NIH study found that most mental health services
for school-aged children were provided in schools. But schools do not
always have the expertise to provide those services. I worked with
Senator Franken to direct the Department of Education to allow for
grants that would link local schools to community-based mental health
services, thereby expanding a school's ability to support children who
have more complex mental health needs and allowing for the training of
school personnel to meet students' mental health needs.
Finally, this title allows for the use of Elementary and Secondary
Education Act title I funds to create or update school crisis
management plans. These plans are key to ensuring the safety of all
students and school personnel.
Because these programs are schoolwide and reach every student, this
means students receive the support they need early--often before
problems develop. It also means that students who need more
comprehensive and complex services are identified early and can be
linked to those services as soon as possible so that problems don't
become worse.
This combination of prevention and early detection of needs, as well
as expanding the services and supports available to schools, will help
address the wide gap in mental health supports for school-age children.
The second title of this amendment focuses on programs at the
Department of Health and Human Services. I worked with my colleagues
Senator Reed and Murkowski to reauthorize the Garrett Lee Smith
Memorial Act, which focuses on suicide prevention on college campuses
and through grants to States. The bill authorizes ``Mental Health
Awareness Training Grants,'' a commonsense idea introduced by Senators
Begich, Blumenthal, and Ayotte to train school and emergency personnel,
as well as other individuals, to recognize the signs and symptoms of
mental illness, to become familiar with mental health resources in the
community, and to safely de-escalate crisis situations.
I worked with Senator Murray to reauthorize and strengthen the
National Child Traumatic Stress Initiative, which supports a national
network of child trauma centers in order to coordinate the collection,
analysis, and reporting of data concerning evidence-based treatments,
interventions, and practices for children and their families who have
experienced trauma.
I also worked with Senator Sanders to authorize and improve the
National Violent Death Reporting System at CDC which provides valuable
information about violent deaths so we can look for ways to prevent
them.
Finally, the amendment calls for additional information to be
gathered on mental health services for children, integrating mental
health and substance use disorder treatments with primary care and the
implementation of recommendations made after the Virginia Tech tragedy
in 2007.
Before I yield the floor, I wish to join my colleagues in expressing
my appreciation to Senator Manchin and Senator Toomey. They have
provided great leadership in bringing this legislation forward so that
we can have background checks. We will be voting on that legislation
later this afternoon.
I think it is another example around here--and maybe people will
learn this too late--of how we can sit down and talk. We won't know
what kind of agreement can be reached until we sit down and talk to
people. A person may think he or she is miles apart on an issue, and in
the beginning maybe they are, but by talking and working things out, we
can reach good agreements. This is a good example of that.
The one element I would add to that is that the amendment I just
called up is an important part of this bill in that it deals with
mental health services both to children in school and out of school.
Again, I believe this is a very important part of what we ought to be
doing to reduce violence and respond to the mental health care needs of
our young people.
Again, I thank Senator Manchin and Senator Toomey for their
tremendous leadership on this important issue.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in watching this debate, at times I see a
Senator who actually wants to stand up
[[Page S2732]]
and be the conscience of the Nation. Unfortunately, some quickly want
to step back from that precipice and be the conscience of a lobby on
one side or the other.
As far as being the conscience, we saw that last Thursday when the
Senate rejected the ill-conceived filibuster against considering the
Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013. The vast majority of
American people did not want it filibustered. They wanted us to have
the courage to stand up and vote yes or no, not vote maybe, which is
what a filibuster is.
After considering the bipartisan efforts of Senator Manchin and
Senator Toomey to plug loopholes in the background check system, the
Senate will consider a partisan alternative offered by Senator
Grassley, and I will speak about that in a moment.
Before I do that, I would like to talk about what Senator Collins and
I have done. I have a bipartisan amendment that will prevent criminals
from circumventing the existing background check system.
Amendment No. 713
(Purpose: To increase public safety by punishing and deterring firearms
trafficking)
Mr. President, I call up my amendment numbered 713, the Leahy-Collins
amendment, which is at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] for himself, Ms.
Collins, and Mr. King, proposes an amendment numbered 713.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this amendment makes some minor changes to
the Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act. Our act is designed to
give law enforcement the necessary tools to combat the practices of
straw purchasing and illegal trafficking in firearms. An example of
that is when somebody legally buys a handgun for $500 and then turns
around and sells it for $1,500 to a drug cartel or somebody who could
not buy it themselves. Usually they buy a lot more than one weapon;
they buy a whole lot. They will buy them legally and then sell them to
people who could never legally buy them. We have seen what that has
done in Mexico with its drug cartels. We have seen what it has done
with the drug cartels and gangs in some of our major cities.
I commend Senator Collins for her work in developing this amendment
and for her strong support of the law enforcement officials who
requested this legislation to help them keep our communities safe.
Straw purchasers circumvent the purposes of the background check
system. Straw purchasers put guns into the hands of someone who is
legally prohibited from having one. And 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.
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 Second
Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans.
This Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act--originally introduced
as S. 54--will make important changes and better equip law enforcement
officials to investigate and prosecute the all-too-common practices of
straw purchasing and illegal trafficking of firearms. As I said, these
are people who are not prohibited by Federal law from purchasing a gun.
They purchase a firearm on behalf of a person or at the direction of a
drug trafficker, criminal, or organization, and that is how these large
criminal organizations are supported. That is how these illegally
obtained guns are often sold and resold across State lines. Of course,
this results in the proliferation of illegal firearms and gun violence
in our communities.
Gun trafficking and straw purchasing make our communities less safe.
We recently saw a case where a woman was arrested as a straw purchaser
after she bought a weapon for a man who then, it appears from the
evidence, used that weapon to kill the head of the Colorado prison
system. That man was blocked from buying a weapon. Somebody else bought
it for him.
Under current law, there is no specific statute that makes it illegal
to act as a straw purchaser of firearms. Nor is there a law directly on
point to address the illegal trafficking of firearms. As a result,
prosecutors must cobble together charges against a straw purchaser
using so-called ``paperwork'' violations such as misrepresentations on
a Federal form. These laws are imperfect, and do not give prosecutors
the leverage needed to encourage straw buyers, often the lowest rungs
on a ladder in a criminal enterprise, to provide the information needed
for investigators and prosecutors to go after those directing and
profiting from such activity.
Our bill and this amendment would change that. They will add two new
provisions to our Federal criminal code to specifically prohibit
serving as a straw purchaser of firearms and trafficking in firearms.
The bill establishes tough penalties for these offenses in an effort to
punish and, importantly, deter this conduct. I was accused at the
Committee markup on this bill of being too tough on these crimes. I
believe we need a meaningful solution to these serious problems.
Another key provision of our bipartisan bill is that it complements
existing law that makes it a crime to smuggle firearms into the United
States by specifically prohibiting the smuggling of firearms out of the
United States. In light of what we know is occurring, particularly on
our Southwest border, this is an important improvement to current law
and another tool that was needed but missing over the last few years.
The provisions in our legislation are focused, commonsense remedies
to the very real problems of firearms trafficking and straw purchasing.
Our bill does not affect lawful purchases from Federal firearms
licensees, and in no way alters their rights and responsibilities as
sellers of a lawful commodity. We listened to concerns about family
members who give firearms as gifts and other transfers that are not
designed to get around the existing background check system. As a
result, the bill contains important exemptions for the innocent
transfer of a firearm as a gift, or in relation to a legitimate raffle,
auction or contest.
In an effort to encourage even broader support for our bill, Senator
Collins and I have made changes to our bipartisan bill to emphasize
that this legislation will have no adverse effect that would impact
law-abiding gun owners. We have consulted a lot of people on this
matter, including law enforcement officials, prosecutors, victims, and
the National Rifle Association. We have consulted gun owners and
others. We have brought together some very diverse views, which is what
that legislation is supposed to do. We want to combat the destructive
practices of straw purchasing and firearms trafficking. I am pleased
that our discussions with all of these groups resulted in legislation
that reflects diverse views yet is a focused approach to combat the
destructive practices of straw purchasing and firearms trafficking,
while protecting the Second Amendment rights of Americans.
The amendment has all of the important provisions of the measure that
was debated and voted on by the Judiciary Committee and passed with a
bipartisan majority. These include two new Federal criminal statutes
that will help law enforcement go after straw purchasers and firearms
traffickers.
[[Page S2733]]
After the bill was reported out of Committee, a Committee report was
filed in relation to it that made our intent plain in the meaning of
the bill. The clarifying language likewise ensures that lawful gun
purchasers can buy firearms from licensed dealers as bona fide gifts or
raffles or as contest prizes and so on. This amendment should also
eliminate any concern about imposing potential liability on the
original purchaser of a firearm for the criminal acts of the ultimate
recipient of the firearm after it is conveyed by that purchaser and
reconveyed a number of times. The amendment also includes other
technical changes to conform the bill to existing law regarding the
forfeiture of firearms and ammunition.
Throughout our committee process and discussions, no one was
questioning the constitutionality of these provisions, and they have
all accepted the fact that they will help law enforcement. In fact, the
required nexus to interstate commerce in the bill is identical to that
already in existing law. Our bill does not create a national firearms
registry, nor does it place any additional burdens on law-abiding gun
owners or purchasers.
I worked with Senator Collins, Senator Durbin, Senator Gillibrand,
and others to provide a real world, common sense solution to the
problem of gun trafficking and straw purchasing. There is wide
agreement that straw purchasing and illegal gun trafficking have to be
stopped, and that is why law enforcement so strongly supports our
amendment. In fact, this measure was introduced at the request of law
enforcement officials who have said for years that they lack the legal
tools necessary to combat illegal straw purchasing and firearms
trafficking. It will provide needed tools to fight against the drug
cartels and other criminals who threaten our communities.
Like our original bill, the amendment we now offer has the support of
numerous law enforcement organizations, including the National
Fraternal Order of Police; the Federal Law Enforcement Officers
Association; the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the
Major Cities Chiefs Association; the FBI Agents Association, the
National District Attorneys Association--an organization on which I was
privileged to serve as vice president; and all nine member
organizations of the National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent
Gun Violence.
I mention all these things because we took months doing this. We met
with everybody. We worked. We listened to opposing views and supporting
views. Then we had hearings and then we had a markup. But all of a
sudden, late this morning, with no hearings, no markup, no chance to
debate it, we have a partisan alternative led by some members of the
Senate Judiciary Committee.
In contrast to the broad law enforcement support we have earned for
our attempt to combat gun trafficking and strawpurchasing, there is
suddenly a Republican alternative which would gut the protections and
tools that our law enforcement community needs. That partisan
alternative was released late this morning and surprisingly the effort
is led by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. None of their
provisions was considered through regular order or even offered and
debated in committee.
People always speak about regular order, but none of these provisions
were considered through regular order. None of them were offered or
debated in committee. All of a sudden, wait, wait. We can't have this
thing that law enforcement wants. We can't have this thing that might
actually stop drug cartels and organized crime from getting these guns.
We have suddenly come up with a new idea this morning. Sorry we don't
have time to talk about it. Sorry we don't have time to have hearings.
Sorry we can't go through the committee. Sorry we can't have votes.
Trust us.
As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I took my
responsibility seriously when the committee considered gun violence
legislation. We held three hearings. We had four lengthy markups. There
were many amendments circulated and we debated them. The distinguished
Presiding Officer is a member of that committee. He was there for all
those hearings. He was there for all that debate. They went on
sometimes for a long time, but we voted up or down, and we worked to
broker bipartisan compromises.
The results: Some of those same members who serve on the Senate
Judiciary Committee circulated this lengthy substitute--just hours
before the scheduled vote on their half-baked alternative. It is a weak
and counterproductive alternative. The substitute is a weak and
counterproductive alternative, and this weak and counterproductive
alternative, this partisan substitute, has not been the subject of one
single hearing or any committee debate or vote.
The lengthy partisan substitute does several things to make our
communities less safe. One of its provisions directly undermines what
Senator Collins and I wish to accomplish. We want to stop trafficking.
We want to stop drug cartels and organized crime and bank robbers and
those who would murder government officials. We want to stop them from
being able to get these guns through straw purchases. The Republican
substitute requires prosecutors to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
a straw purchaser knew for certain that he was buying for a prohibited
person. A straw purchaser could have every suspicion in the world that
the actual buyer is a dangerous criminal, but as long as he
deliberately shields himself from getting confirmation of that fact, he
is untouchable. Willful ignorance will be their shield.
What this alternative Republican amendment does--the one that was
suddenly sprung on us with no hearings, no votes late today--is it
actually has a roadmap of how to avoid prosecution, how to do the
things the drug cartels want and organized crime wants, and to make
sure they will never be prosecuted. As long as straw purchasers ask no
questions, bury their heads in the sand, they can't be held
accountable. They can buy these guns. They can meet somebody in a back
alley who is trying to hide his face and say: I could have bought this
legally. Give it to me. Here is your money. Besides that, I will pay a
300-percent profit and then get away with it.
The Republican substitute will help the Mexican drug cartels by
eliminating an existing tool that the Justice Department needs to
combat violence on the Southwest border. The Republican substitute also
interferes with state prosecutions of gun crimes. Under existing law, a
person who is traveling through a state with a gun he is not allowed to
possess in that state can assert as a defense that he was merely
traveling between two states in which his possession would be legal.
This is fair. But the Republican proposal takes this defense and places
the burden on the state prosecutor to disprove the defendant's claim
beyond a reasonable doubt in all cases, even if the defendant has
offered no evidence at all to support his claim. If the state
prosecutor fails to meet this high burden, the Republican proposal
requires the state to pay the defendant's attorney's fees. This is a
clear intrusion on the longstanding police powers of states.
I urge everyone who cares about helping law enforcement and keeping
firearms out of the hands of criminals to oppose the Republican
substitute, number 725, and to support the bipartisan, Leahy-Collins
amendment, number 713.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is notified the majority time has
expired.
Mr. LEAHY. I appreciate that. I hope we will not pass this. I hope we
will not strip State and Federal law enforcement in their effort of
trying to protect us.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Amendment No. 725
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the Grassley-Cruz
substitute amendment. This amendment has come through the extended
process of consideration of legislation and, indeed, I think this
amendment has come to pass precisely the way the process should operate
as a result of multiple hearings in the Judiciary Committee; taking
witness testimony, examining what the evidence demonstrates is the
problem, and then endeavoring to craft a solution that multiple
Senators have contributed to. It has been a long collaborative process.
At this point this amendment has over 20 cosponsors, and I am hopeful
and believe that when it
[[Page S2734]]
comes to a vote, it will receive some significant bipartisan support.
In my view the approach of the Federal Government to violent crime
should be very simple. It should be focused on stopping violent
criminals, and we should devote every resource to stopping violent
criminals from committing horrific acts of violence. Every one of us
was horrified by the crime in Newtown, CT--at the senseless killing.
Mr. LEAHY. Would the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. CRUZ. I am happy to yield.
Mr. LEAHY. The Senator suggested this went through the process, went
through the Judiciary Committee. I have been on the committee for 36
years. I have been chairman for a number of years. I don't recall when
this happened. Would the Senator from Texas tell me when it was ever
voted on. Did we ever have a markup? Did we ever have a hearing?
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, as the distinguished chairman is well aware,
this amendment was not put before the committee, but it is as a result
of the process in the committee; the testimony that was given in
multiple hearings that I was honored to attend with the chairman and
with the Presiding Officer, and it is in response to that testimony and
that evidence that over 20 Senators have come together to craft
legislation that actually addresses the problem.
Indeed, I would note, my biggest concern with the legislation--the
Democratic legislation on the floor--is it doesn't address the problem.
It doesn't target violent criminals. Instead, what it does is it
targets law-abiding citizens. If we are to be effective in stopping
violent crime--and I am confident every Member of this body wants to do
everything we can to stop violent criminals from harming innocents
among us--the approach that is effective, in my judgment, is targeting
violent criminals while at the same time safeguarding the
constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans. That is exactly what
this substitute does. I wish to talk about several aspects of it, all
of which are directed at targeting bad actors, at targeting violent
criminals rather than law-abiding citizens.
One of the disturbing things we discovered in the course of these
extended hearings in the Judiciary Committee is that the Obama Justice
Department has not made it a priority to prosecute felons and fugitives
who attempt to illegally purchase firearms. Indeed, we learned that in
2010, over 48,000 felons and fugitives attempted to illegally purchase
firearms. Of those 48,000, the Obama Justice Department prosecuted only
44. That is 44 out of over 48,000. At the hearing, we heard from a
police chief who yelled at a Senator and said he didn't have time to
worry about paperwork violations. I would submit that if a convicted
felon is trying to illegally buy a gun, that is not a paperwork
violation, and that is a prime area for focusing law enforcement
resources, to figure out why that felon wants a gun and to go and
prosecute them.
If a fugitive fleeing from justice tries to illegally purchase a gun,
we need to have the resources to prosecute it. So one of the things
this bill does is to create a task force within the Department of
Justice devoted to prosecuting felons and fugitives who attempt to
illegally purchase guns. It provides $50 million--$10 million a year
over 5 years--to provide the additional resources to make sure that
when felons and fugitives try to illegally purchase guns, we go after
them, we prosecute them, we put them away, and we prevent them from
acquiring those guns and using them in horrific acts of violence.
A second aspect of this substitute focuses on gun crimes--instances
where felons use a gun in the commission of a crime. In 1997, in
Richmond, the U.S. attorney there pioneered a program called Project
Exile, which was tremendously successful. I note that was the U.S.
attorney under a Democratic President, Bill Clinton. Project Exile put
serious Federal resources to prosecuting under Federal law anyone who
uses a gun in the commission of a crime. As a result of that innovative
plan, we saw tremendous success.
In 1997, before Project Exile had been implemented, Richmond had the
third highest murder rate in the Nation. Yet, in 1998, after Project
Exile was implemented, homicides dropped 33 percent. The next year, in
1999, homicides dropped an additional 21 percent. It was a program that
worked.
When President George W. Bush was elected, he expanded the program
with Project Safe Neighborhoods, focused the same, putting law
enforcement resources and priorities and prosecuting the use of guns in
a violent crime. Unfortunately, under the current administration, this
has not been a priority. Indeed, in firearms cases, prosecutions have
dropped 30 percent in the Obama Justice Department.
All of us are united in wanting to stop violent crime and, in
particular, stopping violent crime with firearms. I would suggest the
most effective way to do so is to ensure we are prosecuting violent
criminals who use firearms. For that reason this amendment creates a
national Project Exile that would, in particular, focus on the 15
jurisdictions with the highest violent crime rates and three tribal
jurisdictions with the highest crime rates. It would devote $45
million--$15 million a year for 3 years--for more assistant U.S.
attorneys and agents to prosecute violent gun crimes, to target exactly
who we want to target--violent criminals. I would note as well that
this legislation also includes new language criminalizing straw
purchasing, criminalizing trafficking but doing so in a way that
targets bad actors and doesn't sweep innocent, law-abiding citizens
inadvertently into its reach.
A third area of focus is school safety. Unfortunately, the Obama
administration, in the past several years, has reduced the funding for
school safety by over $300 million. Indeed, next to me are detailed
examples: The Secure Our Schools grants were cut $110 million in 2012;
readiness and emergency management for schools was cut $20 million to
30 million annually in 2012; school safety initiative was cut $53
million in 2011; and the safe and drug-free school grants were cut $184
million in 2010. This substitute restores funding for school safety.
If the effort is to protect our kids--and I know all 100 Senators
want to do everything we can to protect our kids--one of the most
direct ways is to make sure there are resources on the ground
protecting our kids. So this bill would provide $300 million in
funding--$30 million a year for 10 years--to do exactly that, to
provide funding for the secure our schools grants.
A fourth area is improving the existing background checks as it
concerns mental illness. If we look for a common theme among these mass
murders we have seen in recent years, one of the most disturbing themes
is we have seen person after person with serious mental illness
accessing firearms and using them to commit horrific acts of violence.
One of the real problems with our existing background check system is
some 18 States have essentially refused to comply with reporting mental
health records. Some 18 States have reported fewer than 100 records to
the background check system. If adjudications of someone as a danger to
others--having a serious mental illness that makes them a danger to
others--if those adjudications are not reported to the background check
system, then the existing system cannot operate. I would note my home
State of Texas has devoted considerable efforts to reporting those
records and, indeed, over 200,000 mental health records have been
reported from the State of Texas to ensure that those with serious
mental illness who are a danger to others are prevented from accessing
firearms.
If the objective is to stop violent crime, then it seems to me we
should focus on criminals. I would note that quite intuitive statement
is not one which I am alone in viewing in that way.
Recently, a survey was done of over 15,000 law enforcement
professionals about what measures would be effective stopping violent
crime. Mr. President, 79.7 percent of law enforcement professionals, in
this survey done by police, said, one, expanded background checks would
not be effective in stopping violent crime; 71 percent of law
enforcement professionals said the assault weapons ban being considered
by this body would not be effective in stopping violence crime;
interestingly enough, 20.5 percent of law enforcement professionals
said if the assault weapons ban were passed, it would actually make
violent crime worse; and 95.7 percent of law enforcement
professionals--virtually unanimous--said the
[[Page S2735]]
magazine restrictions that are being considered by this body would not
be effective in stopping violent crime.
I would suggest we should listen to the men and women on the ground,
to the police officers, who risk their lives defending us, defending
our children, and we should trust their assessment.
I wish to make two final observations.
One, there has been considerable discussion about expanding
background checks. Right now, background checks are required of any
individual who purchases a firearm from a licensed Federal firearms
dealer. That is the existing system, and the system that the amendment
I am proposing would work to improve.
There is an amendment pending before this body to expand that system
significantly and in particular to cross a threshold that has not
previously been crossed: to require Federal Government background
checks for purely private sales between private individuals. If an
individual wants to sell, for example, his shotgun, and he puts an ad
on Craigslist advertising that shotgun, under the pending bill, by
putting that ad on Craigslist, that individual would be required to
submit to a Federal background check, would be required to go to a
Federal firearms dealer to do so, and would, of necessity, have to pay
whatever fee was set.
I would note that fee could well be substantial. We do not know what
that fee would be, but we do know the District of Columbia right now
charges $150 to conduct a background check. If the fee turned out be
anything in the order of what the District of Columbia charges, the
effect of passing that bill would essentially be a Federal Government
penalty, potentially as much as $150, on an individual who wanted to
sell his or her shotgun or rifle to another law-abiding citizen in a
purely private transaction.
I would suggest if the objective is to stop violent crime, in all of
the hearings we had before the Judiciary Committee, there was no
evidence submitted that purely private transactions between private
citizens were a significant source of firearms used in crimes and that
regulating them would help reduce violent crime. Indeed, as I said, one
police chief told the committee he did not have time to prosecute
felons and fugitives who were illegally trying to purchase guns.
If law enforcement does not have time to prosecute felons and
fugitives, then I would suggest they especially do not have time to
prosecute private citizens in a private consensual sale, when neither
of those individuals have committed a crime; they are law-abiding
citizens. That is not an effective use of law enforcement resources.
But even more problematic, extending background checks to private
transactions between private individuals--if this body did that--I
believe would put us inexorably on the path to a national gun registry.
The reason is simple: Because by extending background checks to private
transactions--the Department of Justice has been very candid about
this. The Deputy Director of the National Institute of Justice
explained that with respect to universal background checks,
``effectiveness depends on requiring gun registration.''
Mr. SCHUMER. Will my colleague yield for a question?
Mr. CRUZ. I am happy to yield.
Mr. SCHUMER. I appreciate my colleague's courtesy.
I would ask my colleague this: Isn't it the case that the very
background check proposed in Manchin-Toomey is the same one that has
been used for 17 years for FFLs, for Federal firearm licensees? Isn't
it the exact same one?
Mr. CRUZ. What is not the exact same is extending it to a private
individual selling to another private individual.
Mr. SCHUMER. But it is the same technique, it is the same entry into
the book, and everything else.
Mr. CRUZ. But what is consequential is extending it to private
sellers, not licensed dealers. Because the argument surely would be--if
this bill passed, the argument would immediately become: Well, it
cannot possibly be effective because we do not know who owns those
firearms.
Mr. SCHUMER. Just one more question.
Has my colleague in the last 17 years detected any move out of
Washington for a national registration, any specific substantive move
by ATF, the Justice Department, or any other Federal agency to begin a
campaign, a move to any kind of national registration?
Mr. CRUZ. In my opinion, adopting mandatory Federal Government
background checks for purely private transactions between law-abiding
citizens puts us inexorably on the path to a push for a Federal
registry.
Mr. SCHUMER. But my colleague has not detected any move of that as of
yet?
Mr. CRUZ. It is not currently proposed.
Mr. SCHUMER. OK.
Mr. CRUZ. But if the bill that is being considered were adopted, it
would put us on that path, and I think that path would be profoundly
unwise and would be inconsistent with the Second Amendment right to
keep and bear arms.
Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my colleague for his courtesy.
Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, will my colleague yield for a question?
Mr. CRUZ. I am happy to yield to my friend from West Virginia.
Mr. MANCHIN. I thank my friend from Texas.
I am a little bit confused since it is my and Senator Toomey's
amendment, working with Senator Kirk and Senator Schumer. We excluded
all private transactions. We did not ever even go close to a private
transaction. Ours is only at gun shows, gun stores, and Internet sales,
which is controlled now.
Mr. CRUZ. With respect, the legislative language, as I understand it,
is triggered whenever there is any form of advertising, be it on the
Internet or on Craigslist or The Greensheet or anything else, and that
sweeps in a whole category of new sellers, purely private sellers who
are not commercial firearms dealers.
Commercial firearms dealers are already, as my friend is well aware,
subject to significant regulation. Shifting to a new category of
private law-abiding citizens is a major threshold and one that I think
is unwise.
Mr. MANCHIN. On the Internet right now, as I understand the law as we
have it, without changing anything--mine or yours--if I buy from you in
Texas, and you send me that gun, it has to go by law through a licensed
dealer for me to go get a background check to pick it up. We have not
changed that, sir. All we do is say if you buy in State or out of State
they are treated the same.
Mr. CRUZ. Well, except the bill also applies to any advertising. It
is not limited to the Internet. I would apply to a listing on
Craigslist, to a listing in the local newspaper. If an individual
wanted to sell his or her firearm and advertised in any way, they would
potentially be guilty of a felony for not going through the Federal
background check.
What I would suggest--and I want to be respectful of my time because
I think I am nearing the conclusion of it--what I would suggest is all
of us want to stop violent crime. In drafting this substitute, what a
number of Senators endeavored to do is look at the most effective
proposals to do exactly that: to stop violent crime. My view is, if you
have a violent criminal, we should come down on them like a ton of
bricks. But at the same time we should be especially careful to
safeguard the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens.
The Second Amendment is a critical part of the Bill of Rights, and
each of us has taken an oath to defend the Constitution--an oath that I
know every Senator takes quite seriously.
I would suggest there is no evidence to support the claim that
regulating millions of law-abiding citizens, who do not currently pose
a threat, would be remotely effective to stop violent crime. What it
would do is increase the pressure substantially for a national gun
registry.
I would suggest, instead, the contrast between this substitute and
the Democratic bill is striking. The Democratic bill includes no
additional resources for prosecution at all. It does not focus on
prosecuting criminals. I would suggest that omission is quite striking.
It is my hope that--we are going to have a vote on background checks;
this body will decide its view in terms of whether to expand those to
private citizens--but I am hopeful that after
[[Page S2736]]
that vote, when this substitute is considered, we will see some
significant bipartisan agreement that says let's provide the resources
to the men and women of law enforcement to go after violent criminals,
to go after and to incapacitate those with serious mental illness.
Let's do everything we can to stop violent crime and protect the most
vulnerable among us.
Mr. MANCHIN. Will the Senator yield for one quick moment?
If I may ask the Senator, would he agree that a bill or an amendment
should be posted for 48 hours prior to voting?
Mr. CRUZ. Is the Senator suggesting that the Senate should move these
votes?
Mr. MANCHIN. No, no. I am saying, does the Senator believe we should
have 48-hour postings?
Mr. CRUZ. I think that is ordinarily the right process to follow. In
this case, this bill, this substitute took considerable time and was
the result of extended negotiation among a great many Senators. And I
know my friend from West Virginia has gone through those extended
negotiations before and surely will again. This was filed as soon as
there was agreement that brought people together in an area that is my
hope we should be able to find consensus. We should be able to find
consensus on targeting violent criminals. That is what this bill
endeavors to do.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the
Senate for 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. President.
First, I want to thank my colleague from Texas for his courtesy.
I wish to address two issues here: first, the bill that my good
friend from West Virginia and my friend from Pennsylvania have worked
on long and hard, that Senator Kirk and I are sponsors of as well; and,
second, concealed carry.
I have always said that background checks are the sweet spot of this
debate--the sweet spot because it will do the most good and has the
best chance of passing. If this is the sweet spot, we should take
advantage of it. Let us step to the plate and not make this a sour day
for those in Newtown, for those whose families have been victims of gun
violence, and for all Americans.
The bottom line is simple: The Brady law was passed in 1994. The NICS
system came into effect in 1999. And the very system of background
checks that we are proposing has stopped 1.7 million transactions of
guns being sold to felons. It is certain that tens of thousands of
people are walking God's green Earth because of the background checks
required in the Brady law. But those who have criminal intent and wish
to get guns, even though they would not be allowed to under Brady, find
ways around it, and they have. The two leading ways around it are the
gun shows and sales on the Internet.
This amendment is very simple. All it does is take the same method of
background checks and the same method of recording those checks that we
use now when you walk into a gun shop and apply it to gun shows and to
sales on the Internet--no more, no less.
I have not seen any cry from the other side of the aisle to repeal
the background checks mandated under the Brady law. I have not seen any
cry saying, they do not work. We have simply seen that they do not
cover 40 percent, approximately, of gun sales. The bill I originally
introduced I guess is the gold standard. It covered them all. But in an
effort to compromise, Senators Manchin and Toomey, with considerable
courage, worked with us and now individual sales are not covered. But
the sales on the Internet and sales at gun shows are.
I say to some of my colleagues who have been allies in the pro-gun
control movement: Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. This
is a strong, good bill. I say to my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle, the only objection--the only objection we have heard to this
bill, this proposal of Senators Manchin, Toomey, Kirk, and myself--is
that it will lead to registration.
Well, then let me ask or let me refer to my colloquy with the Senator
from Texas. Has there been a single step toward registration as this
system has been in place since 1999, 14 years? Not one. So why is it
all of a sudden that if we extend these to gun shows and Internet
sales, registration will come down upon us like a plague within a
matter of months? The argument, and it is the only argument made
against background checks, that this will cause registration to occur,
is a canard, plain and simply, an excuse. Because the opponents cannot
argue against the substance, they come up with this fearmongering
tactic that this will lead to registration. There is not one jot of
evidence that the existing law, the same as the new law we are
proposing, has led to that.
I would urge my colleagues to step to the plate. Pass this amendment.
I understand the views on the assault weapons ban, which I so strongly
support, and the limitation on clips, which I so believe in. They may
not get a number of votes. But this one is close. This one is close. In
my judgment, this one will save more lives than any other. Let us show
the courage, let us show the wisdom, let us show the conviction that
doing the right thing is the right political thing, and move it.
One more point. The arguments of reciprocal conceal carry would do
devastation to the urban areas of New York. To treat the forests of
Wyoming like Times Square or Yankee Stadium would be wrong. I would
urge we reject that as well.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to speak about the
issue before us, gun violence and the Second Amendment to the
Constitution. We have all been enormously saddened by the recent
senseless acts of violence that have affected our Nation. In Congress,
we have all been deeply moved, and we are all motivated by the
tragedies.
However, unfortunately, the legislation currently before the Senate
would do virtually nothing to address the causes of this violence. This
legislation, in my judgment, would take us down what I would regard as
a dangerous path. Rather than focusing on the underlying causes of gun
violence, this legislation would place onerous restrictions on law-
abiding Americans, who have a right and are exercising their Second
Amendment rights.
It should trouble us that the first response to recent tragedies is
to curtail the Bill of Rights. These rights were so incredibly vital to
the birth of this great Nation. The Founders specifically limited the
power of the government to restrict these rights. But this legislation,
in my judgment, goes beyond and pushes beyond those constitutional
limits. The bill before us would have a number of adverse effects.
For example, it would prevent a Nebraskan from using a neighbor's
shotgun to go trap shooting on a nearby farm or an uncle from giving a
niece a hunting rifle as a birthday gift without receiving FBI
approval. As my colleague from Iowa has pointed out, the Deputy
Director of the National Institute of Justice has written that
universal background checks can only be enforced if coupled with
national gun registration.
This legislation--I agree with the Senator from Texas--would be a
first step on the path toward a national gun registry, a far cry from
the vision of our Founders, who exercised this very fundamental right
to secure our freedom.
The fact is, had this legislation been law, it would not have
prevented any of the recent atrocities that have affected families in
our Nation.
We will also have the opportunity to vote on a series of amendments.
One such amendment we will consider is the so-called assault weapons
ban, which would prohibit law-abiding citizens from possessing certain
firearms based upon cosmetic characteristics. Once again, this ban
would do little to prevent future gun violence.
Furthermore, I find it so incredibly ironic that its proponents think
these weapons are a problem in the hands of law-abiding citizens but
apparently see no problem with the same weapons being glorified in
Hollywood movies and video games. Apparently we should ban these
devices in rural Nebraska where we grow up around firearms but allow
our children to idolize Hollywood
[[Page S2737]]
stars committing mass shootings on the big screen and then try it out
for yourself in a graphic video game where the game is interactive,
violent, and you are literally shooting at people.
At the end of the day, this legislation is so incredibly flawed that
no amount of tweaks or changes can ever possibly improve it. That is
why I am a cosponsor of the alternative of the Senator from Iowa, a
complete substitute which seeks to address the root causes of gun
violence and correctly balances the need to secure our Second Amendment
rights.
This amendment focuses on adequate enforcement of the gun laws
currently on the books, as well as the mental health needs of our
country. We owe it to the victims of gun violence to pass legislation
that will actually address the causes of these tragedies; otherwise, it
will not stop. As Senators who took an oath to uphold the Constitution,
we owe to it all Americans to protect this fundamental right, this
right contained in the Bill of Rights that is so vital to the very
freedom we enjoy.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise to address this issue for 5
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, first, let me mention I am a gun owner. I
have an A rating with the NRA. The Second Amendment is extremely
important to me, my constituents, Pennsylvanians generally, to
Americans generally.
Let me be very clear about this too. The Second Amendment does not
apply equally to every single American. That is not even a
controversial notion. The Second Amendment was never meant to apply to
young children. Nobody disputes that. The Second Amendment does not
apply to people who forfeit their Second Amendment rights by committing
crimes for which they are convicted. It cannot apply and does not apply
to people who have been adjudicated as mentally dangerous. These are
the three classes of Americans for whom the Second Amendment does not
apply, as it does and should and must for everyone else.
So the goal Senator Manchin and Senator Schumer and Senator Kirk and
I set out on when we began this process--I want to thank my friend from
West Virginia. He has worked harder than anybody on this. Senator
Schumer has worked very hard as well; Senator Kirk, who from the
beginning provided very important leadership on this. The goal was to
see if we could find a way to make it a little bit more difficult for
the people who have no legal right to have a gun to obtain one. That
was the goal. Along the way, we thought that if we can find some ways
to better secure the opportunities for law-abiding citizens to exercise
their Second Amendment rights, that would be terrific to work into
this. We did that as well.
How do we attempt to make it a little bit more difficult for
criminals and the dangerously mentally ill to purchase handguns? We do
it actually in two ways. One is to strengthen the existing background
check system. By strengthening, what I mean is encouraging States to
provide the information they already have, and that some do provide but
some do not. In other words, the States have records about people who
have been adjudicated as dangerously mentally ill, for instance, those
people who plead not guilty to a crime by reason of insanity, those
people who are deemed to be mentally incompetent to stand trial. We
have records at the States of people who have been adjudicated as
mentally unfit to have a firearm.
Then, of course, it is States that have the criminal records. So all
we are doing is encouraging these States to provide this information so
that when a criminal attempts to buy a handgun or a long gun or when
someone who is dangerously mentally ill attempts to do so, the
background check system can capture them.
That is the first big piece. It does not create a new system. It does
not expand in any way the existing system except to encourage States to
provide the information they already have.
The second thing we do is we ask to have a background check at gun
shows. We already have background checks if you buy from a licensed
dealer. In my State of Pennsylvania, anyone who buys a handgun anywhere
at any time has a background check. What this would do in Pennsylvania
is it would extend background checks for commercial sales which are
conducted at gun shows, and for advertised sales over the Internet.
I have got to tell you, there is absolutely no way that this can be
construed as an infringement on Second Amendment rights. You do not
have to take my word for this. But I would take Justice Scalia's word
for this, in the Heller decision, where he quite rightly came to the
conclusion, as did a majority of the Supreme Court, a conservative
majority came to the correct conclusion in my view that the Second
Amendment is an individual right. It is not contingent on membership in
a militia, it is not a collective right of multiple people. The
Founders did not acknowledge collective rights. It is an individual,
personal right. They were correct.
But in that decision, Justice Scalia also observed there is nothing
unconstitutional about legislation that would limit or restrict and try
to prevent the purchase of firearms by people who do not enjoy this
right. So that is what we do.
I know there has been a great deal of concern about a registry. No
one would oppose a Federal registry of firearms more than I. There is
no need for the government to have one. Only bad things could result.
Fortunately, Senator Manchin and I are completely in agreement on this.
So while it is already illegal, we further strengthen the prohibition
against that by stating in our amendment that any Federal employee, not
just those who are members of the ATF but any Federal employee who even
begins the process of compiling the data that could lead to a registry
would be committing a felony subject to 15 years imprisonment.
That is a pretty tough reality, that anyone thinking--even thinking
about doing this, I think would weigh very seriously, and thereby, I
believe strongly, we preclude the possibility, the danger of an
inappropriate registry.
Finally, I mentioned we enhance the opportunity for law-abiding
citizens to enjoy their Second Amendment rights. We do it in a variety
of ways.
One is we clear up some risks people take, law-abiding citizens who
are traveling across multiple States, such as a sportsman who packs a
weapon quite properly but who is traveling into a State which has a
different regime. We clarify that person is not committing any crimes
or violating any laws.
We allow the purchase of handguns out of State. They are subject to
background checks. Why not?
Current law prohibits Active-Duty military personnel from buying a
weapon in their home States. We repeal that as well.
A similar measure to this--without the benefits to Second Amendment
supporters and expansion of background checks--was on the House floor
in 1999. That bill was endorsed by the NRA. I voted for it and a
majority of Americans voted for it. We did so because it was common
sense. This isn't gun control, this is common sense. This is a modest
measure to increase the chances of keeping guns out of the hands of
people who have no legal right to have a gun.
We are going to have a close vote today. I wish to thank all of my
colleagues who considered this and have given us every opportunity to
make our case. I wish to again thank Senators Manchin, Schumer, and
Kirk for the very hard work they have done.
I urge my colleagues to support the Manchin-Toomey amendment.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President our thoughts and prayers are with the
victims and their families of yesterday's cowardly attack. I appreciate
the updates I have received from the FBI about the matter and await the
outcome of their investigation. The President is right to emphasize
that Americans will not be terrorized.
In the aftermath of the explosions in Boston we were reminded once
again how Americans come to each other's aid in a crisis. We witnessed
citizens and first responders selflessly helping others. Just as first
responders in Newtown responded in minutes and went headlong into a
situation without knowing what they would encounter, in Boston we saw
similar heroism.
[[Page S2738]]
First responders risk their lives to protect the public. That is what
they do over and over again across the country. I believe that as a
result of the bravery and speedy response of first responders in
Connecticut, lives may have been saved on December 14. And we remember
today that 6 years ago the Nation was stunned by the rampage at
Virginia Tech.
Our law enforcement officials deserve our respect and support. Law
enforcement officers and first responders risk their lives to protect
the public. That is why I find it so disappointing to hear some blame
law enforcement for not preventing these tragedies.
The legislation before the Senate today to improve the Nation's
background checks system and prosecute gun trafficking would
significantly assist law enforcement in their efforts to keep the
public safe. I spoke yesterday about the pending amendment, the
bipartisan Manchin-Toomey amendment to close the gun show and other
loopholes in the background check system while respecting and
protecting the Second Amendment rights of responsible gun owners. The
Senate has had this amendment before it since last Thursday. I trust
the Senate will vote on it today, and I hope the Senate will adopt it.
We have had background checks for decades. These checks are an
accepted part of the process of buying a gun. Like millions of other
responsible gun owners, I understand that this check is necessary to
help keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those who are
dangerous to themselves and others due to mental illness.
Since 1998, more than 2 million sales to prohibited people have been
prevented thanks to background checks. That is 2 million times a
potentially dangerous person trying to get a gun was denied a gun. Is
that a good thing, a positive thing, in the interest of safer
communities? Of course it is. Who can credibly argue otherwise?
What we are now trying to do is improve the background check system.
We all know there is a huge loophole in our background check system.
Criminals and others prohibited from buying guns at gun stores can get
around the background check requirement by going to gun shows. I know
gun store owners in Vermont. They follow the law and conduct background
checks. They wonder why others who sell guns do not have to follow
these same rules. I agree with these responsible business owners. This
loophole needs to be closed.
The Manchin-Toomey bipartisan amendment closes the loophole in a way
that does not infringe upon Second Amendment rights. Sales at gun shows
and sales using online or print advertising will now be governed by the
same requirements as gun stores in Vermont and elsewhere. This will
make us safer. It is focused on gun shows and commercial sales, not
family gifts or transfers between friends and neighbors. The bill does
not require background checks for temporary transfers of guns for
hunting or target shooting. Instead, the bill requires background
checks for the kind of sales that can be easily exploited by people who
intend to do harm.
Why would we not try to plug the loopholes in the law that allow
dangerous criminals to buy guns without background checks? This is a
simple matter of common sense. The NRA testified in 1999 in favor of
mandatory criminal background checks for ``every sale at every gun
show.''
This is about plugging loopholes in background checks. No court has
held that background checks, which have been with us for decades,
violate the Second Amendment. Indeed, when the U.S. Supreme Court
expressly held that the Second Amendment provide an individual right in
the Heller case, it also said that ``longstanding prohibitions on the
possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill'' do not violate
the Second Amendment. No one should oppose this amendment on Second
Amendments grounds because it does not undermine the Second Amendment.
Some have expressed frustration about the level of prosecutions under
existing gun laws, and some have suggested that instead of making
sensible changes to our public safety laws to prevent gun violence,
Federal law enforcement officials should focus exclusively on existing
laws. I share some of that frustration, but I do not agree it is a
valid excuse for Congress to do nothing. Improvements in the
enforcement of existing laws and efforts to give law enforcement
officials better tools to do their jobs are not mutually exclusive,
those efforts complement each other.
I have noted that Americans are looking to us for solutions and for
action, not filibustering or sloganeering. This is something we can
come together to accomplish. No one can or will take our Second
Amendment rights or our guns away. They are not at risk. But lives are
at risk when responsible people fail to stand up for laws that will
keep guns out of the hands of those who will use them to commit crimes
of violence. This is something we can come together and do to make
America safer and more secure.
I have also been encouraging the Senator from West Virginia in his
efforts. He has shown great leadership, sensitivity, and perseverance.
I commend Senator Toomey for his willingness to join in this
legislative effort. Together, they have done the Senate and the country
a great service.
Improving the background check system is a matter of common sense.
Senators Manchin and Toomey have shown that it can be accomplished in a
way that better protects our communities and fully respects our Second
Amendment rights. I am pleased to support this bipartisan solution.
Amendment No. 714
Several opponents to the gun violence measure pending have tried to
justify their opposition to legislation designed to keep guns out of
the hands of criminals by claiming that these measures would not have
prevented the tragedy in Newtown or any other mass killings. I think
that argument makes no sense.
We should be responding to protect our communities with a broad
approach to help law enforcement go after gun traffickers and straw
purchasers who arm drug cartels and plug loopholes in our background
check system.
In addition to those important steps, the pending amendment to limit
ammunition clip size directly addresses some of our most recent gun
violence tragedies. It is clear that several victims of gun violence
would be alive today if the gunman had been required to pause
momentarily to change his ammunition clip. When I decided to call for
hearings on gun violence before the first Judiciary Committee several
months ago, I wanted the public to hear directly from victims of gun
violence. We began our first of three hearings with former
Congresswoman Gabby Giffords. She called on us to act in the wake of
too many American tragedies and her battle to recover from gun violence
is an inspiration to all of us fighting for legislation today.
At that same hearing, her husband, CAPT Mark Kelly, testified about
the day his wife was gunned down. He said:
The shooter in Tucson showed up with two 33-round
magazines, one of which was in his 9 millimeter. He unloaded
the contents of that magazine in 15 seconds. Very quickly. It
all happened very, very fast. The first bullet went into
Gabby's head. Bullet number 13 went into a 9-year-old girl
named Christina-Taylor Green, who was very interested in
democracy and our Government and really deserved a full life
committed to advancing those ideas. If he had a 10-round
magazine--well, let me back up. When he tried to reload one
33-round magazine with another 33-round magazine, he dropped
it. And a woman named Patricia Maisch grabbed it, and it gave
bystanders a time to tackle him. I contend if that same thing
happened when he was trying to reload one 10-round magazine
with another 10-round magazine, meaning he did not have
access to a high-capacity magazine, and the same thing
happened, Christina-Taylor Green would be alive today.
That was a direct quote from CAPT Mark Kelly's testimony. It is
chilling to think that something we could pass today could save the
next Christina-Taylor Green.
The Judiciary Committee also heard from Neil Heslin, whose son was
murdered at Sandy Hook. He testified in support of limiting high-
capacity magazines. We cannot forget his son Jesse or the 19 other
precious children who were gunned down in December or the brave
educators who sacrificed their lives trying to protect children.
A reasonable limit on the size of ammunition clips is a modest step
going forward. This amendment would not apply retroactively. No lawful
gun owner will have to turn over anything.
It is a cruel irony that in some States we are more protective of the
[[Page S2739]]
deer being hunted than our children. In Vermont, we have very few laws
affecting the right to bear arms, but we do limit the ammunition clips
used in hunting. It is not a threat to the Second Amendment to limit
clip size in hunting, so why is it a threat to limit them when the
potential targets are people? The reality is that the Second Amendment
is not under threat, but our children are.
I am a responsible gun owner. I have owned and shot weapons with many
different styles of ammunition clips, so I understand the issue we are
considering. Requiring a gun owner to change clips more often is not
too much to ask when we see the human costs of high-capacity magazines
in mass shootings. The law enforcement organizations that work on the
frontlines in our cities and towns support this amendment. The grieving
families are right to raise this issue because even if we save one or
two lives with this change, it is worth it.
Just as I said in 1993 when I voted for the Feinstein-DeConcini bill,
this amendment is not going to solve all violent crime, but it will
make people safer. I believe that limiting the size of ammunition clips
going forward could save lives in the next mass shooting. I do not want
to wonder if we could have done more when another son or daughter is
killed. I will support this amendment. It is the right thing to do for
public safety and to honor the young lives lost in Newtown, in Aurora,
and in Tucson.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of commonsense
legislation to address the epidemic of gun violence in America.
In the aftermath of the Newtown tragedy, Americans across the country
began a solemn discussion about gun violence, and an emerging consensus
has formed around several much-needed reforms.
The Senate Judiciary Committee heard compelling testimony in support
of these measures, we debated them, and we reported them to the full
Senate. It is time now for the Senate to debate and pass this
legislation. We can achieve greater safety in our schools, movie
theaters, churches, and malls, and on our city streets, without
infringing on anyone's constitutional right to bear arms.
A large majority of the public wants to keep dangerous weapons off
the streets and out of the hands of criminals.
The legislation that we are voting on includes several important
provisions. First, it would close loopholes that allow millions of gun
purchasers each year to evade the background check system without
scrutiny. Under current law, a convicted felon, a drug addict, a
domestic abuser, or someone who has been determined by a court to be
dangerously mentally ill, can easily evade background checks by
purchasing firearms at a gun show or online.
The American people understand that allowing so many gun purchasers
to evade background check laws does not make sense: Universal
background checks are supported by over 90 percent of the public. As
President Obama has said, ``How often do 90 percent of Americans agree
on anything?''
Second, to stop people from subverting existing gun laws, this
legislation clearly outlaws straw purchases, where an individual buys a
firearm for someone who cannot legally buy one. It also clarifies and
expands existing trafficking laws to give our law enforcement officials
the tools they need to combat gun violence.
Third, the legislation includes a commonsense grant program to
improve school and campus safety. No parent should have to worry, when
they walk their son to the bus stop, or drop their daughter off at her
dorm, whether they are safe. I hope we can all agree on the importance
of protecting our children.
We will also be considering an assault weapons ban as an amendment.
This proposal, which I cosponsor, helps restrict the sort of military-
style assault weapons that have no place in a civilian setting.
I know that in the politics of this issue, the assault weapons ban
has uphill sledding. But I would certainly hope we can agree on a ban
on high-capacity magazines. The full assault weapons ban has the
support of the majority of Americans; the ban on high-capacity
magazines has even more overwhelming support from the public. In recent
polling, 65 percent of Americans said that they support a ban on high-
capacity magazines.
It is no wonder that the public overwhelmingly supports this ban. As
we heard in testimony before the Judiciary Committee and in other
venues, in almost every mass shooting in the past few years, high-
capacity magazines led to additional deaths and injuries.
John Walsh, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Colorado, testified
that in Aurora the shooter used a hundred-round drum and was able to
murder 12 people and injure 58 in a matter of 90 seconds. The carnage
only stopped when that ultra-large feeding device jammed.
Captain Mark Kelly testified that in Tucson, the shooter had a 33
round magazine and was able to kill 6 people and injure 12 in a matter
of 15 seconds. He was only overwhelmed when he eventually had to change
magazines. Nine-year-old Christina-Taylor Green was killed by the
thirteenth bullet from that magazine. That little girl might well be
alive today if her murderer had to stop to reload after 10 rounds.
We have heard no reasonable justification for why any civilian needs
these deadly devices. They are not appropriate for hunting. A number of
laws already restrict the number of rounds per magazine for hunting,
and most sportsmen would not want to hunt with high-capacity magazines.
These magazines also are not necessary or appropriate for self-
defense. Opponents of this legislation talk about the need for high-
capacity magazines and assault weapons in nightmare scenarios: society
breaking down following a terrorist attack, or natural disaster; or
gangs of armed intruders breaking into homes.
But there is no evidence that anyone has been made safer by having
access to these magazines, and law enforcement officials and experts
have repeatedly pointed to the dangers of keeping them in the home.
Even some gun clubs ban their use on the range, because they are so
dangerous.
I have also cosponsored an amendment to close the so-called ``terror
gap.'' Believe it or not, under the existing law, someone on a
terrorist watch list would not be allowed to board an airplane, but
there is nothing stopping him or her from buying a gun. This loophole
is ridiculous and dangerous, and we should close it immediately.
These proposals are reasonable measures that would make our
communities safer from gun violence. I urge the Senate to pass them.
Amendment No. 715
The VICE PRESIDENT. Under the previous order, there will now be 2
minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form prior to the vote
on amendment No. 715, offered by Mr. Manchin.
The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. MANCHIN. If you are committed to protecting Second Amendment
rights, as I am, as well as the great citizens of this country, vote
for this bill. If you desire for all of our veterans to be treated with
dignity and due process when they return from battle, vote for this
bill. If you wish to keep criminals and dangerously mentally ill people
from purchasing guns at gun shows and on the Internet, you should vote
for this bill.
To always remember those 20 babies, beautiful children, the six brave
teachers, and to honor the most courageous family members I have ever
met in my life, please vote for this bill.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I strongly oppose this amendment.
Expanded background checks would not have prevented Newtown.
Criminals do not submit to background checks now; they will not submit
to expanded background checks.
The Deputy Director of the National Institute of Justice has written
background checks will work only if they are universal and are combined
with gun registration.
This amendment would start us down the road to registration. It would
open, not close, loopholes.
It would require background checks when people advertise a gun for
sale in their church bulletins or Farm Bureau newsletter. It subjects
people to Federal criminal liability up to 5 years for violations of
State or local law, which is unprecedented.
[[Page S2740]]
The pro-gun provisions would actually reduce existing protections for
law-abiding gun owners.
I urge my colleagues to reject this dangerous and misguided approach.
I yield back the remainder of my time, and I yield the floor.
Mr. TOOMEY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 46, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 97 Leg.]
YEAS--54
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Cowan
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Heinrich
Hirono
Johnson (SD)
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Reed
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--46
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Baucus
Begich
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Enzi
Fischer
Flake
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heitkamp
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Lee
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Pryor
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Vitter
Wicker
The VICE PRESIDENT. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for
the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote by
which the Manchin amendment No. 715 was not agreed to.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The motion is entered.
Amendment No. 725
There is now 2 minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in
relation to amendment No. 725, offered by the Senator from Iowa, Mr.
Grassley.
Who yields time?
(Disturbance in Visitor's Gallery.)
The VICE PRESIDENT. There will be order in the Senate. The gallery
will refrain from any demonstration or comment.
The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the Grassley-
Cruz substitute.
Now that the previous vote has been taken, I would suggest this is a
bill we all should be able to support. This is a bill that provides
major resources to prosecuting violent criminals, to going after
felons, to going after fugitives, to preventing them from getting guns.
It provides resources for school safety. It provides additional
resources to improve the background check system and to encourage
States to provide more records on mental health illness.
This is a strong law enforcement bill. I know everyone in this body,
regardless of party, wants to act decisively to stop violent crime, and
it would be a shame if this amendment is subject to a partisan vote
which would result in inaction rather than our standing together to put
law enforcement resources toward stopping violent crime.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the argument we just heard is absolutely
upside-down of what that amendment is. This amendment guts the bill, it
guts the straw purchasing provisions, it guts the gun trafficking
provisions. It totally undermines law enforcement.
Law enforcement strongly supports the next amendment we have--the
Leahy-Collins--but all this does, this substitute amendment, is aid
Mexican drug cartels, eliminates the tools being used to get law
enforcement investigatory leads. It undermines rather than strengthens
the current background check.
We talk about do we enforce our laws. If you want to gut our laws,
which this one does, don't argue they are not being enforced. This
handcuffs law enforcement, helps drug cartels, helps drug syndicates.
It is a bad amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The Senator's time has expired.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. BARRASSO. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 48, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 98 Leg.]
YEAS--52
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Baucus
Begich
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Donnelly
Enzi
Fischer
Flake
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Hatch
Heitkamp
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Landrieu
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Pryor
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NAYS--48
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cowan
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Harkin
Heinrich
Hirono
Johnson (SD)
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Lautenberg
Leahy
Lee
Levin
Manchin
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes
for the adoption of the amendment, this amendment is rejected.
Mr. LEAHY. I move to reconsider the vote and move to lay that motion
on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 713
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to
amendment No. 713, offered by the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Senator Collins and I, as well as other
Senators in both parties, worked with law enforcement, worked with the
NRA, worked with a whole lot of others to craft this amendment. It
gives law enforcement officials the tools they need to stop the all-
too-common practices of straw purchasing and illegal trafficking of
firearms. This gives us the tools to go after drug cartels that use
straw purchasers to get their guns and gangs in big cities that use
straw purchasers to get their guns.
It is an important law enforcement measure. Across the political
spectrum, law enforcement supports it. Let's stand with law enforcement
and vote aye.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I rise to speak against this amendment. It
is worthwhile to strengthen the protections against straw purchasing
and trafficking, but unfortunately this language, in my judgment, is
overbroad and in particular has a real risk of criminalizing innocent
conduct. For example, if your father asks you to purchase a firearm for
him and your father pays you, under this bill both you and your father
become felons because it bans any purchase for another person if that
individual pays for it. In my judgment, that is overbroad, and that is
the reason why in the prior amendment we changed the language to target
bad actors and to exclude innocent conduct, to avoid ensnaring those
law-abiding citizens with no ill will and inadvertently making law-
abiding gun owners into felons.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment.
[[Page S2741]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. CRUZ. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 58, nays 42, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 99 Leg.]
YEAS--58
Baldwin
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Cowan
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Johnson (SD)
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Manchin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--42
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Enzi
Fischer
Flake
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schatz). Under the previous order
requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is
rejected.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay the motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 719
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to
amendment No. 719 offered by the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn.
The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. My amendment is called the Constitutional Concealed Carry
Act because it is designed to protect the fundamental Second Amendment
rights of American citizens who are traveling or temporarily away from
home while they hold a concealed handgun license.
There is only one State and the District of Columbia that do not
recognize some form of concealed gun carry law. In other words, it is
part of the public policy of 49 States that concealed handgun licenses
may be obtained by lawful owners.
Our amendment would allow persons with concealed handgun permits be
allowed to carry those weapons as they travel between jurisdictions and
avoid any sort of prosecution. This does not create a national
standard. It does not apply to jurisdictions that don't otherwise
recognize the right to the conceal carry law. In effect, it would act
like a driver's license so the gun owner doesn't have to get a separate
license in each State they travel through. For those who believe
background checks are important, this is a background check on
steroids.
I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. This amendment would wreak havoc in large portions of
America--suburban and urban areas. The bottom line is very simple: In
Wyoming maybe the conceal carry law works. Every police officer in
America, all of them, will say that the conceal carry law would be a
disaster in Times Square, the L.A. Coliseum, or in the Dallas, TX,
stadium. It would be a disgrace. Police officers would not know who is
carrying and who is not carrying a weapon. Because there are no
residency requirements, criminals from our States could go to States
such as Florida, get a conceal carry permit, and criminals and felons
could legally conceal and carry weapons in other States.
We hear a lot of talk about States rights. This is a classic States
rights vote. Let Wyoming do what it wants to do with conceal carry, but
don't impose that on New York and vice versa.
I strongly, strongly urge that this amendment--which takes one way of
life in America and imposes it on all ways of life--be defeated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the Cornyn amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 43, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 100 Leg.]
YEAS--57
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Baucus
Begich
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Donnelly
Enzi
Fischer
Flake
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Landrieu
Lee
Manchin
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Pryor
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Warner
Wicker
NAYS--43
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cowan
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Harkin
Hirono
Johnson (SD)
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I could have order, we are going to have
three more votes tonight, and we are going to finish a number of things
that have already been scheduled on this legislation tomorrow. Senator
McConnell and I will meet in the meantime to decide our path forward.
So three more votes tonight and then we will finish sometime in the
morning.
Amendment No. 711
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is now 2
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to
amendment No. 711 offered by the Senator from California, Mrs.
Feinstein.
The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I have watched these votes and I must
say I view them with substantial dismay at the lack of courage in this
Chamber--courage to stand and say: We have had enough of these
killings. We have had enough of the development of highly militarized
weapons--easy to shoot, big clips, 100-plus bullets in each, large
velocity guns--falling into the hands of grievous killers, juveniles,
people who are mentally disturbed. There will be no background checks,
apparently, and we have a proliferation of these weapons.
I have a hard time understanding it. We are here on 6-year terms for
a reason: to take votes on difficult issues. Everything needs 60 votes
today. This is supposed to be a majority body. We have crafted an
assault weapons bill to truly represent the people of America. Every
single poll has shown support for this.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Let me conclude by saying this: I know how this is
going to end, and the despair and the dismay of families standing out
there whose safety we need to protect, and we don't do it--I am very
chagrined and concerned. If anybody cares, vote at least to
prospectively ban the manufacture, the sale, the importation of
military-style assault weapons. Show some guts. Thank you.
[[Page S2742]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I strongly oppose this amendment. This
would result in the largest ban of guns in the history of our Republic.
Three studies that the Justice Department sponsored during the
previous ban found no evidence it was effective in reducing multiple
victim shootings or wounds per victim. It did not stop Columbine. It
would not stop Newtown. The ban does not apply to existing weapons such
as those used at Newtown, and criminals who would steal such guns would
not care the least if they were banned.
We never received an opinion from the Justice Department that such a
ban would satisfy the Second Amendment. I surmise they are not able to
conclude it is constitutional. A ban on guns based on their looks when
more powerful guns are exempt would not satisfy any standard of review.
These guns are commonly used, in the words of the Supreme Court, for
self-defense. They cannot be constitutionally banned.
This is a slippery slope of compromising the Second Amendment, and if
we go down that road, we are going to find it easier to compromise
other things in the Bill of Rights.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 40, nays 60, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 101 Leg.]
YEAS--40
Baldwin
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cowan
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Harkin
Hirono
Kaine
Kirk
Klobuchar
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--60
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Donnelly
Enzi
Fischer
Flake
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (WI)
King
Landrieu
Lee
Manchin
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Pryor
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Warner
Wicker
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Hirono). Under the previous order
requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is
rejected.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. CARDIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 720
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is now 2
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to
amendment No. 720, offered by the Senator from North Carolina, Mr.
Burr.
The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. BURR. Madam President, I am going to be brief because I do want
my colleagues to listen. This is an important amendment.
Today, the VA determination is that if a veteran cannot handle their
own finances, then their name is referred to the FBI and they are put
on the NICS list. Today, 129,000 veterans are on the NICS list. Yes,
there is an appellate process to get off, but the VA provides no help
to the veteran. The cost is all incurred by the veteran. Only 200
veterans have applied for that reversal in the decision, and only 6
have been granted. They should never be put on it. A determination that
they cannot handle their own finances is not a determination that they
are a threat to themselves or to the public.
This bill is very simple. It says that if the VA makes a
determination, there has to be a judicial decision to put them on NICS
lists. That is the standard everywhere else in the Federal Government.
I urge my colleagues to support this very important piece of
legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, when we began this debate, we talked
about strengthening the NICS system, we talked about how people who
have mental illness should be added to the list so they might not get
guns. And here, in one amendment, in one fell swoop, we will take
165,000 people off that list.
Does my colleague, my dear friend from North Carolina, believe every
single one of those people should be allowed to carry a gun? Of course
not. If there are injustices to some of those folks, then let's have a
system that deals with it. But you do not--you do not--in one fell
swoop take 165,000 people, all of whom have some degree of
incompetence, off the list.
It is unbelievable that at a time when we are supposed to be
strengthening the NICS system with people who are adjudicated or judged
otherwise mentally ill, we are considering tonight taking a giant step
backward and reducing the list. What is America going to think is going
on in this body?
I strongly urge a ``no'' vote.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. WICKER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 44, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 102 Leg.]
YEAS--56
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Baucus
Begich
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Donnelly
Enzi
Fischer
Flake
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Hatch
Heitkamp
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
King
Kirk
Landrieu
Lee
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Pryor
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sanders
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NAYS--44
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cowan
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Harkin
Heinrich
Hirono
Johnson (SD)
Kaine
Klobuchar
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Manchin
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Donnelly). Under the previous order
requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is
rejected.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 714
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, my friend, and a
great champion, Senator Frank Lautenberg with us today, and others,
including my colleague Senator Christopher Murphy, I call up amendment
No. 714.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Blumenthal], for himself,
Mr. Lautenberg, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Whitehouse,
Mr. Cowan, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Kaine, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr.
Merkley, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Carper, Ms. Warren, Mr. Levin, Mr.
Durbin, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Menendez, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr.
Franken, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Harkin, proposes an
amendment numbered 714.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page S2743]]
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To regulate large capacity ammunition feeding devices)
At the end, add the following:
TITLE IV--LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES
SEC. 401. DEFINITIONS.
Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended
by inserting after paragraph (29) the following:
``(30) The term `large capacity ammunition feeding
device'--
``(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar
device, including any such device joined or coupled with
another in any manner, that has an overall capacity of, or
that can be readily restored, changed, or converted to
accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition; and
``(B) does not include an attached tubular device designed
to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber
rimfire ammunition.
``(31) The term `qualified law enforcement officer' has the
meaning given the term in section 926B.''.
SEC. 402. RESTRICTIONS ON LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING
DEVICES.
(a) In General.--Section 922 of title 18, United States
Code, as amended by this Act, is amended by inserting after
subsection (u) the following:
``(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell,
manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate
or foreign commerce, a large capacity ammunition feeding
device.
``(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession of
any large capacity ammunition feeding device otherwise
lawfully possessed on or before the date of enactment of the
Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013.
``(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
``(A) the importation for, manufacture for, sale to,
transfer to, or possession by the United States or a
department or agency of the United States or a State or a
department, agency, or political subdivision of a State, or a
sale or transfer to or possession by a qualified law
enforcement officer employed by the United States or a
department or agency of the United States or a State or a
department, agency, or political subdivision of a State for
purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off duty), or a
sale or transfer to or possession by a campus law enforcement
officer for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off
duty);
``(B) the importation for, or sale or transfer to a
licensee under title I of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 for
purposes of establishing and maintaining an on-site physical
protection system and security organization required by
Federal law, or possession by an employee or contractor of
such licensee on-site for such purposes or off-site for
purposes of licensee-authorized training or transportation of
nuclear materials;
``(C) the possession, by an individual who is retired in
good standing from service with a law enforcement agency and
is not otherwise prohibited from receiving ammunition, of a
large capacity ammunition feeding device--
``(i) sold or transferred to the individual by the agency
upon such retirement; or
``(ii) that the individual purchased, or otherwise
obtained, for official use before such retirement; or
``(D) the importation, sale, manufacture, transfer, or
possession of any large capacity ammunition feeding device by
a licensed manufacturer or licensed importer for the purposes
of testing or experimentation authorized by the Attorney
General.
``(4) For purposes of paragraph (3)(A), the term `campus
law enforcement officer' means an individual who is--
``(A) employed by a private institution of higher education
that is eligible for funding under title IV of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.);
``(B) responsible for the prevention or investigation of
crime involving injury to persons or property, including
apprehension or detention of persons for such crimes;
``(C) authorized by Federal, State, or local law to carry a
firearm, execute search warrants, and make arrests; and
``(D) recognized, commissioned, or certified by a
government entity as a law enforcement officer.''.
(b) Identification Markings for Large Capacity Ammunition
Feeding Devices.--Section 923(i) of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: ``A
large capacity ammunition feeding device manufactured after
the date of enactment of the Safe Communities, Safe Schools
Act of 2013 shall be identified by a serial number and the
date on which the device was manufactured or made, legibly
and conspicuously engraved or cast on the device, and such
other identification as the Attorney General shall by
regulations prescribe.''.
(c) Seizure and Forfeiture of Large Capacity Ammunition
Feeding Devices.--Section 924(d) of title 18, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by inserting ``or large capacity ammunition feeding
device'' after ``firearm or ammunition'' each place the term
appears;
(B) by inserting ``or large capacity ammunition feeding
device'' after ``firearms or ammunition'' each place the term
appears; and
(C) by striking ``or (k)'' and inserting ``(k), or (v)'';
(2) in paragraph (2)(C), by inserting ``or large capacity
ammunition feeding devices'' after ``firearms or quantities
of ammunition''; and
(3) in paragraph (3)(E), by inserting ``922(v),'' after
``922(n),''.
SEC. 403. PENALTIES.
Section 924(a)(1)(B) of title 18, United States Code, as
amended by this Act, is amended by inserting ``(v),'' after
``(q),''.
SEC. 404. USE OF BYRNE GRANTS FOR BUY-BACK PROGRAMS FOR LARGE
CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.
Section 501(a)(1) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3751(a)(1)), as amended by
this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(I) Compensation for surrendered large capacity
ammunition feeding devices, as that term is defined in
section 921 of title 18, United States Code, under buy-back
programs for large capacity ammunition feeding devices.''.
SEC. 405. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this title, an amendment made by this
title, or the application of such provision or amendment to
any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional,
the remainder of this title, the amendments made by this
title, and the application of such provision or amendment to
any person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is 2 minutes
of debate equally divided.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. This amendment, very simply, would ban high-capacity
magazines of more than 10 rounds which are used to kill more people
more quickly and, in fact, have been used in more than half the mass
shootings since 1982.
I ask my colleagues to listen to law enforcement, their police,
prosecutors who are outgunned by criminals who use these high-capacity
magazines. I ask that my colleagues also listen to the families, to
Nicole Hockley, whose son, Dylan Hockley, was killed by a man who used
a high-capacity magazine. She said of the man who killed her son, he
left the smaller capacity magazines at home. He knew the larger
capacity magazines were more lethal.
I ask my colleagues to listen to Bill Sherlach whose wife Mary
Sherlach was killed on December 14.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
I yield the floor.
PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I oppose the amendment. In 2004, we had
a study by the Department of Justice, which is the last time we had the
large-capacity magazine banned. It found no evidence banning such
magazines has led to a reduction in gun violence. The study also
concluded it is not clear how often the outcomes of the gun attack
depend on the ability of offenders to fire more than 10 shots without
reloading.
The report found no evidence more people would be alive if a magazine
over 10 rounds was banned.
Secondly, there is no evidence banning these magazines has reduced
the deaths from gun crimes. In fact, when the previous ban was in
effect, a higher percentage of gun crime victims were killed or wounded
than before it was adopted.
Additionally, tens of millions of these magazines have been lawfully
owned in this country for decades. They are in common use, not
unusually dangerous, and used by law-abiding citizens in self-defense,
as in the case of law enforcement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I urge its defeat.
Mr. CARDIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 54, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 103 Leg.]
YEAS--46
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cowan
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Harkin
Heinrich
Hirono
Johnson (SD)
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
[[Page S2744]]
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--54
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Baucus
Begich
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Donnelly
Enzi
Fischer
Flake
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Hatch
Heitkamp
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Landrieu
Lee
Manchin
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Pryor
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Warner
Wicker
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Heinrich). Under the previous order
requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is
rejected.
The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following
leader remarks tomorrow, Thursday, April 18, the Senate resume
consideration of S. 649; that the time until noon be equally divided
and controlled between the two leaders or their designees for debate on
the Barrasso and Harkin amendments; that at noon the Senate proceed to
votes in relation to the Barrasso and Harkin amendments, in that order,
with all other provisions of the previous order remaining in effect.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________