[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 101 (Thursday, June 23, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4530-S4535]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                            2016--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                      Motion to Recommit Withdrawn

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I withdraw my motion to recommit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is withdrawn.


                Motion to Commit With Amendment No. 4858

  Mr. McCONNELL. I move to commit the bill to the Judiciary Committee 
with instructions. This is amendment No. 4858.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] moves to commit 
     the bill to the Judiciary Committee with instructions to 
     report back forthwith with an amendment numbered 4858.

  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask for the yeas and nays on my motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4859

   (Purpose: To authorize the Attorney General to delay or deny the 
 transfer of firearms and explosives and issuance of Federal firearms 
 and explosives licenses and permits to known or suspected terrorists.)

  Mr. McCONNELL. I have an amendment to the instructions, amendment No. 
4859.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], for Mr. Johnson, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4859 to the instructions of 
     the motion to commit H.R. 2578.

  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the 
amendment 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. McCONNELL. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Amendment No. 4860 to Amendment No. 4859

  Mr. McCONNELL. I have a second-degree amendment at the desk, No. 
4860.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4860 to amendment No. 4859.

  The amendment is as follows:


[[Page S4531]]


  

       At the end, add the following:
       This Act shall take effect 1 day after the date of 
     enactment.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip is recognized.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I think later on this afternoon we will 
have an opportunity yet again to express ourselves on the terrible 
shooting in Orlando a little over a week ago. Some have wanted to make 
this a debate about the Second Amendment. Others said that maybe it 
would be more productive to solve the problem and prevent people like 
the Orlando shooter from ever being able to commit this terrorist 
attack.
  Sadly, yesterday we voted down the McCain-Burr amendment, which would 
have provided additional tools to the FBI, which had already had this 
shooter under investigation on two previous occasions and then taken 
him off the watch list, having found no evidence or not sufficient 
evidence to keep him on the watch list. The problem is, unfortunately, 
that failed.
  We know it is important to stop people who would commit acts like 
this from buying guns. We know we need to alert our law enforcement 
agencies when people whom they have reason to suspect are planning a 
terrorist attack. We know it is important to keep them from buying 
guns. Frankly, the Feinstein amendment and the Cornyn amendment we 
previously voted on both share those in common--no fly, no buy. The 
only major difference is whether we are going to engage in a 
presumption of guilt and deny due process of law. In other words, just 
because your name appears on some secret list maintained by the Obama 
administration or any administration, you could somehow be denied a 
constitutional right.
  I said earlier that the Second Amendment is one of the constitutional 
rights in the Bill of Rights, but there are others, obviously: the 
First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment--you name 
it. If we are going to say somehow that based on a mere suspicion by 
government and your name on a secret list, you can be denied a 
constitutional right, that is a dangerous and slippery slope.
  Previously, we voted on an amendment that I offered. We got 53 
votes--bipartisan support--for that amendment which would provide a 
means for the FBI to be notified. If somebody who was on one of these 
lists attempted to buy a gun, there would be a 3-day waiting period, 
and then the FBI would be able to conduct additional investigations--
let's say go to court, get a search warrant, get a wiretap, find out 
what this is all about and whether they ought to act. Frankly, 
terrorists--if they are too dangerous to buy a gun, they are too 
dangerous to be loose in our communities, and it would provide a means 
consistent with the Constitution for the FBI to do their job and to 
keep these dangerous terrorists off the street.
  We were told by some of our colleagues that the 3 days we provided in 
the bill wasn't enough. So we said we would be willing to discuss that. 
There is nothing magical about 3 days. It can't be a year, but it 
certainly can be more than 3 days. And we suggested that there be an 
alternative, perhaps, that more Members of the Senate would be 
comfortable with. We said that was flexible.
  Then there were some who said that a probable cause standard is too 
high a standard to impose on the government to deny somebody a 
constitutional right. We said that these are people who haven't yet 
committed crimes, and that is a criminal evidentiary standard. Maybe 
there is another standard we can agree on that is something more than 
just a suspicion or because you happen to be from a certain ethnicity 
or perhaps your religion. There has to be more than just targeting 
people based on ethnicity and religion or suspicion, but we said that 
would be flexible as well.
  So what it comes down to, and really the differences between the two 
pieces of legislation we are going to likely vote on this afternoon, is 
those who believe the government should not have to present the 
evidence they have in hand to an impartial magistrate or judge. It is 
just that simple.
  Some would say: Well, the fact that the government puts you on the 
list ought to be enough to deny you your constitutional rights.
  Well, having said that, we all believe that terrorists should not get 
access to guns, but we can't do this in a way that denies who we are as 
a people or denies our most fundamental law of the land, which is the 
due process provisions of the U.S. Constitution.
  So unfortunately we are engaged in this exercise that, frankly, I 
don't think would have made much of a difference to what happened in 
Orlando. To me, that is the great tragedy of the debate we have been 
having last week and this week. I doubt this would stop anyone who was 
a licensed firearm owner already and licensed security guard from doing 
what Oscar Mateen did.
  I think the McCain-Burr amendment which was voted down yesterday had 
some real potential because while the FBI conducted two separate 
investigations of this shooter previously because of comments he had 
made and suspicions they had, they didn't find sufficient evidence. An 
authority that the FBI calls their No. 1 legislative priority had 
lapsed; that is, to be able to use national security letters to not 
only gain access to telephone numbers--not content--and financial 
information but also the Internet addresses and email addresses on 
Mateen's computer and get that from his Internet service provider.
  What is so important about this is that it is not a grant of access 
to content. That requires a showing of probable cause in a court of 
law, consistent with the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But 
unfortunately, yesterday, the one tool that might have given the FBI 
some additional information that might have triggered a further 
investigation, might have kept Mateen on one of these lists, which 
would have heightened the surveillance and the investigation of this 
person--it didn't happen.
  I would just ask my colleagues, are we engaged here in trying to 
solve problems and save lives, or is this just a political exercise? 
Sadly, I think we are guilty of engaging in a political exercise when 
we are voting on things that actually would not have solved the 
problem.
  We know this is not the last time terrorists will try to attack 
American citizens here at home. It is going to happen again, sadly, 
unless we wake up and provide the FBI and our counterterrorism 
officials the intelligence they need so they can stop these sorts of 
lone wolf terrorists in place. This is the preeminent threat from ISIS 
today. It is not what is happening in Syria, not what is happening in 
Iraq, although that is a serious threat to stability in the Middle 
East; it is the fact that, unlike 9/11, they don't need to get in an 
airplane and come here because what they can do is radicalize American 
citizens in place using their poisonous propaganda on the Internet and 
through social media.
  I simply don't understand why some of our colleagues voted not to 
give the FBI this authority which is so important for them to collect 
the dots so they can connect the dots. That is the only way we are 
going to stop these people, is by making sure that, consistent with who 
we are as American people and consistent with the Constitution, we let 
law enforcement officials collect the dots so they can connect the 
dots.
  This afternoon I will be casting my vote in favor of due process of 
law before anyone's constitutional rights are denied. I would do that 
for the Second Amendment. I would do it for the First Amendment. I 
would do it for the Fourth Amendment. I would do it for every provision 
of our Constitution that represents a right--not given to us by 
government but our natural rights conferred by us by our Creator.
  At this time, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
from 1:15 p.m. until 2 p.m., including any quorum calls, be equally 
divided between the two leaders or their designees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CARPER. Reserving the right to object----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. I am not going to object.
  Mr. President, I was just walking through, seeing what was going to 
go on later this afternoon. I heard my colleague and friend from Texas 
talking.

[[Page S4532]]

He is very thoughtful and knowledgeable of the law. He is a former 
supreme court justice, as I recall, from the State of Texas and a very 
good Senator, and he is trying to reach across the aisle to get things 
done.
  I commend Susan Collins for her work, as well as Senator Heidi 
Heitkamp and others who are trying to get us closer to a no fly, no buy 
approach.
  I would have us keep in mind that I am the son of a guy who was a big 
hunter and a buyer and trader of guns--my dad, who is now deceased--but 
he was also a big believer in using common sense with respect to guns 
as well.
  I think most Americans find it troubling, certainly, the idea that 
somebody could be denied the right to fly on an airplane and then turn 
around and go buy a gun. I think most Americans agree that is crazy. I 
hope we are going to take at least a small step in the right direction.
  The other thing I find especially troubling--this came from a Bible 
study group that met here earlier this afternoon with the Chaplain. We 
talked about the idea that somebody could go to a gun show and be a 
convicted felon, they could be somebody with a serious mental illness--
--
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask for regular order.
  Mr. CARPER. If I could have 1 more minute, I will be done.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, it is hard for me to say no to Senator 
Carper because he is such a nice guy and so reasonable, but this isn't 
a time to be making speeches; it is a time to object or not. So if he 
has a concluding remark----
  Mr. CARPER. I will be very brief. My hope is that at the end of the 
day, we pass what Senator Collins and Senator Heitkamp have worked on, 
but I would also come back and consider some other issues where we 
could actually save more lives. That is my commitment, and I am sure it 
is one the Senator from Texas shares as well. Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would say that if we were united in our 
desire to actually get to a solution, something that could make a 
difference, I believe we could. But unfortunately this debate has been 
hijacked by some who believe that, frankly, the right to keep and bear 
arms is not an individual right under the Constitution, and they are 
willing to presume that the government is right because out of mere 
suspicion your name appears on a secret classified list.
  I want to defeat the terrorists. I want to protect the American 
people. But I don't want to sacrifice who we are as a country and our 
conviction that constitutional rights are important, including the 
basic rights in the Bill of Rights, including the right to defend 
yourself and your family under the Second Amendment.
  There is a principle involved here, and in our desire to get to a 
solution, which I applaud--and the Senator is a reasonable person whom 
I have worked with in the past and whom I hope to work with in the 
future--in our haste to try to deal with this issue, we should not 
violate the very fundamental principles of our Constitution. That is 
really what is at stake.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4858

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I see that my colleague, who has worked 
so hard on this, is waiting. So I will be very brief.
  Ever since the senseless tragedy in Orlando, Senate Democrats have 
been trying to get this body to deal with the issue of gun safety in 
America. My friend, the junior Senator from Connecticut, had to hold 
the floor for 15 hours to get votes on two simple, commonsense 
proposals to keep suspected terrorists from getting guns and on closing 
loopholes in our background checks.
  Those votes failed--shamefully--but my friend, the Republican Senator 
from Maine has been working diligently to put together a compromise 
proposal that wouldn't achieve everything we need to do but would make 
some progress. I commend her for her efforts. I think she sincerely 
wants to get something done, as does just about every Member of my 
caucus. So what have Republican colleagues decided to do? They are 
going to give the Collins amendment a fake vote called a motion to 
table, which won't do a single thing to make the proposal law.
  We have bills to keep guns out of the hands of suspected terrorists, 
and Republican leaders cynically choose to give it a path to nowhere.
  Let me repeat that. The motion to table is a path to nowhere. Even if 
proponents of the Collins amendment--such as the Senator from Maine, 
many Democrats, the Senator from New Mexico, the Senator from Virginia, 
and myself--win on the vote--that is, the motion to table is defeated--
even if we win on the vote, the amendment is still pending. Today, we 
are saying if the motion to table fails, we want a vote next week on 
the Collins amendment--up or down, plain and simple.
  I would say that this motion--the motion to table--is really a motion 
to kill, because that is what I suspect too many of my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle want to do to the Collins proposal and, for 
that matter, to any reasonable measure on gun safety. They are afraid 
that if they give it a real vote, it might actually have a chance of 
passing. That is how strong a grip the NRA has on this place. Even the 
most modest of gun safety proposals can't get a real up-or-down vote in 
the Senate because, God forbid, they might pass.
  I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle that it is 
cynical. If you are really opposed to the Collins amendment, stand up 
and vote no. But the Republican leadership knows that the American 
people--Democrats, Independents, Republicans, North, East, South, and 
West--are overwhelmingly for preventing terrorists and would-be 
terrorists from getting guns.
  So they can't just say: No, we are opposed. They come up with these 
legislative gyroscopic turns and twists to try to hide what they are 
doing, but they can't hide it from us or from the American people, 
plain and simple.
  I say this to the Republican leadership: If the motion to table 
fails, they should bring the Collins amendment to a real vote. The 
distinguished majority leader has said many times that he believes in 
an open amendment process, that his caucus should not be afraid of 
tough votes. I still don't know why this is a tough vote--to keep guns 
from suspected terrorists. But, nonetheless, he should keep his word 
and give a proposal drafted by a Member of his caucus a real up-or-down 
vote.
  Ninety percent of the American people support background checks. 
Anyone with an ounce of common sense wants to keep guns out of the 
hands of suspected terrorists. Yet the Senate and the House Republican 
caucus are fighting against the will of the people at every turn. Even 
if the vote to table succeeds, we should have a real debate and a real 
vote on the Collins amendment.
  If it fails, certainly then, it is still with us. If it succeeds, 
let's have another vote and a real discussion on the Collins amendment 
when we come back next week.
  For the sake of tens of thousands of victims of gun violence every 
year, we have to make real strides when it comes to keeping guns out of 
the wrong hands.
  Let's start by giving the Collins amendment a real up-or-down vote. 
Let's show the NRA that they cannot rule what is said, voted on, and 
approved in this Chamber, the other Chamber, or in America.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to call up amendment No. 4858.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, this amendment is unusual when we are 
debating issues such as terrorist watch lists and the appropriate 
restrictions that are needed--desperately needed--to ensure that people 
who are suspected or known terrorists are not able to purchase 
firearms.
  How is it unusual? It is bipartisan. Surely, on an issue of this 
importance,

[[Page S4533]]

we should be able to come and work for commonsense solutions. This 
bipartisan amendment is cosponsored by Senators Heitkamp, Ayotte, 
Heinrich, Flake, Kaine, Graham, King, Kirk, Nelson, Manchin, and 
Baldwin.
  I sincerely thank each of the cosponsors for their many contributions 
to our amendment and for their support in crafting what is a 
commonsense proposal.
  Our amendment has three basic provisions. First, it would block the 
purchase of firearms by individuals who are on the no-fly list or on 
the selectee list. Essentially, the premise of our amendment is that if 
you have been designated as too dangerous to fly on an airplane or you 
have been designated as someone who needs extensive, secondary 
screening--extra screening before you are allowed to board a plane--you 
should not be able to buy a gun.
  Second, our amendment would provide an immediate alert to the FBI and 
to local law enforcement if an individual who has been on the 
government's terrorist watch list at any time during the past 5 years 
purchases a firearm.
  The Orlando shooting provides, perhaps, the clearest example of why 
this provision is so important. The gunman was on the selectee list for 
approximately 10 months, but then he was off the list when he purchased 
the two guns used to kill 50 people and injure scores more.
  If our amendment were enacted, the FBI would have been notified 
immediately when he purchased the first firearm in the weeks leading up 
to the shooting. Then the FBI would have been notified a second time 
that the former terrorism suspect, who had watched videos of Anwar al-
Awlaki, was seeking to purchase additional firearms in a short period 
of time. Surely that would have caused the FBI to reopen its 
investigation of Omar Mateen. Perhaps, if our proposal had been in 
effect, that massacre would have been prevented.
  Third, our amendment provides robust, due process procedures to 
protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans. Any 
American denied a purchase under this amendment would have the 
opportunity to have their case heard before a Federal district judge.
  The government would have the burden of proof in order to deny the 
sale and would have to present its case within a short but reasonable 
period of time. If the government failed to make its case, if this 
turned out to be some terrible error, it would have to pay attorneys' 
fees for the person who had been denied the purchase and, of course, 
the purchase of the firearm could go forward.
  Our amendment makes sure that the applicant can have cleared counsel 
present to make sure that the government cannot take away a fundamental 
right without a legal advocate to protect their due process rights.
  Critics of our amendment have mistakenly claimed this will allow 
Americans to be denied the right to keep and bear arms based merely on 
suspicion or a hunch. That is simply not true. We are not using the 
terrorist screening database, which has 1.1 million people on it. That 
is not what we are using. We are using the carefully defined No Fly and 
selectee lists because those are the most carefully constructed subsets 
of all of the government's terrorist watch lists. These two lists 
include the names of individuals who pose the greatest threat of 
committing an act of terrorism against aviation, against the homeland, 
against U.S. interests overseas. And there are, in fact, only 109,000 
individuals on this list, of which only 2,700 are Americans.
  Mr. President----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time for the majority has expired.
  The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I wish to compliment my colleagues and 
others for their leadership on this issue. I just want to point out 
something about the institution and what we are about to do.
  Monday night we had competing proposals from both parties to deal 
with this challenging issue of no guns for terrorists. Not 
surprisingly, the majority party wouldn't support the minority party, 
and the minority party wouldn't support the majority party. And none of 
the bills got enough votes to go forward.
  Now there is a bipartisan version on the floor. Now there is a 
version where both parties have worked together to do something 
commonsensical to stop this carnage of gun violence we are seeing in 
the country. And I am just curious as to why one side wants to fight 
against a bipartisan proposal by putting up a motion to table. That is 
what this is.
  I hope we are able to get over that motion to proceed. But it is 
important to point out that when a bipartisan proposal is on the floor, 
where the sides are reaching together to try and do something good for 
our citizens, one side is trying to kill the bipartisan proposal and 
one side is supporting it.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the 
bipartisan compromise amendment drafted by the Senator from Maine, Ms. 
Collins. I say it is a good first step, and I say it is even more than 
that. It is a significant step forward in gun control and violence 
control.
  I can assure you, from those of us who want to control violence, this 
in no way will impinge against Second Amendment rights. But we do want 
to curb violence in our country, which is at an epidemic level. I want 
to compliment Senator Collins, and I want to compliment the people who 
jumped in to help work with her to fashion a compromise. The Senator is 
known for her ability to put together a coalition to come up with the 
best ideas to find common ground.
  However, we are doing something more here than finding common ground. 
We are trying to find higher ground. We are trying to get out of the 
muck and mire that goes on in this institution, where we use 
parliamentary techniques to stifle debate, inhibit a clear vote. Even 
today, with such serious consideration about to take place, we are 
creating a fog of parliamentary procedure where nobody knows--are you 
voting yes or no on Collins? Are you voting yes or no on Johnson? What 
we are going to do is vote on the motion to table so we don't go 
backward.
  Of course, the American people are fed up. I am fed up. But I admire 
what the Senator from Maine did because her amendment--her amendment--
puts us in the right direction. Why should a person be able to buy a 
gun to kill people when they are on the no-fly list? If you are not 
allowed to fly because there is fear that you will blow up an airplane, 
shouldn't there be fear that if you are on that same list, you will buy 
a gun and blow people out of wherever they are?
  Oh, my gosh, when are we going to kind of man up in this institution? 
When are we actually going to do that? Sure, I am a champion of women's 
rights, but like, hello, don't we have the backbone and verve and so on 
to actually have straightforward debate? There is an amendment before 
us which is substantive and has content, and there are different views.
  I want to say I support the Senator for what she is doing. The FBI 
under her amendment would be notified when a person who has been on the 
terror list at any time in the last 5 years tries to purchase a 
firearm. If the Collins amendment had been law, we would have alerted 
the FBI that the Orlando shooter wanted to buy a gun and the Second 
Amendment would have been protected. But most of all, those people in 
that nightclub would have been protected.
  I am for protecting the Constitution, but I am protecting the point 
of the Constitution. When we take an oath, it is to defend the 
Constitution, but it is also to defend the American people against all 
enemies, foreign and domestic. Now, when we meet the enemy and it is 
us, we will not act. We have to act.
  The effort offered by the Senator from Maine is compromise without 
capitulation on principle. It is what the people want. It has 
intellectual rigor. It meets the constitutional test. I hope we support 
it, and I hope somewhere we start giving votes up and down and not 
hiding behind the fog of parliamentary procedure.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Ms. HEITKAMP. Before my comments, I would like to yield 2 minutes to 
the junior Senator from Arizona, who has been so instrumental in 
advancing this proposal.

[[Page S4534]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the Senator for yielding. I rise to thank the 
Senator from Maine for all the work she has put into this and all those 
in the bipartisan coalition who have come together and said: Let's 
actually put something on the floor that can pass, not that is designed 
to be used as a cudgel to beat the other party with. Let us actually do 
something designed to work.
  That is what this bipartisan proposal is all about. It has been well 
described as to what it actually does and how it protects the due 
process provisions that are there.
  Let me simply say that I grew up in rural Arizona. That is where my 
heart still is. I am a gun owner and always will be. I take my Second 
Amendment rights very seriously. This amendment, the bipartisan 
amendment, is consistent with those rights. It also will have an 
impact. If somebody is dangerous enough that we prohibit them from 
flying on a plane, they should not be able to purchase a firearm. That 
is the bottom line. That is what the bipartisan amendment will actually 
solve.
  I would encourage my colleagues to support it. If we don't, we will 
be back here. Believe me, this issue will not go away. It will just be 
after we have another massacre, and we will say: Why didn't we do it 
before? Why didn't we give the FBI notice that somebody had purchased a 
firearm, or why didn't we block the purchase of that firearm for 
somebody on those lists?
  I appreciate the work that has been done on this. I appreciate the 
hard work that has gone into this bipartisan amendment. I urge support 
of it.
  I yield back, and I thank my colleague for yielding.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Mr. KING. Mr. President, this is a national security measure. It is a 
national security measure. It is about protecting our country.
  The preamble of the United States Constitution--which establishes the 
reason this country was founded, the reason the Constitution was 
passed--says that the most solemn obligation we have is to insure 
domestic tranquility and provide for the common defense. That is 
keeping people safe, and that is what this amendment is about.
  Sure, it touches on guns, but what it is really about is keeping guns 
out of the hands of terrorists. It is straightforward. It is simple. It 
is easy to understand. There should be no controversy about this. It 
has due process built in. It has a provision built in that might have 
prevented the tragedy that occurred in Orlando.
  Many of my colleagues talk about our being at war and being in 
conflict. We are in conflict. People want to do us harm. And why we 
would want to facilitate their arming themselves within our own 
country? It makes no sense. This is about national security. It is the 
most solemn obligation we have. This amendment should go through this 
body and the other body in the next few days, or we are failing our 
responsibility to the American people.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues, 
especially Susan Collins and Heidi Heitkamp and Jeff Flake, and 
everyone who has worked so hard to actually come out of our partisan 
corners and do something for a change.
  It is very easy for us all to sit back and take comfortable votes. 
This is not going to be a comfortable vote, but it should be. It is the 
most nonpartisan, straightforward, commonsense amendment I have seen in 
many years around here. It says, basically, if you are so dangerous 
that we can't let you on an airplane, well, maybe you shouldn't be able 
to buy a gun, no questions asked.
  I have spent more time with firearms than most of the folks in this 
Chamber. I have no reservations about this amendment. It protects the 
Second Amendment, it includes due process, and it will keep terrorists 
from being able to buy firearms in this country. Maybe it is too 
commonsense for this body.
  I want to thank everybody who was willing to get to this 
uncomfortable place and do the right thing, and I yield the remainder 
of my time to the Senator from North Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Ms. HEITKAMP. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. President, I think for the first time in a long time, on a very, 
very contentious issue, we have an amazing group of Senators who have 
come together in a very bipartisan way to simply say that there is an 
opportunity to balance the important right that is presented in the 
Second Amendment and to protect the security of the people in our 
country.
  The vast majority of gun owners in this country would gladly give up 
those extra 14 days in order to secure safety and security for the 
American people. When you look at the overall balance and the Second 
Amendment--and to many, many people in my State, it is a critical and 
important individual right. That right has been recognized by the 
Supreme Court. We need to appreciate that is a right just as sacred as 
a Fourth Amendment right, a Fifth Amendment right, and a First 
Amendment right.
  What we have done here is achieve a balance by simply saying: If you 
are too dangerous to get on an airplane, maybe we ought to take a 
second look. But think about the process we have established--in a mere 
14 days, direct access to a court, direct access and opportunity to 
secure your right. We are asking people just to delay for an extra 14 
days.
  As our colleague from South Carolina said, once the gun is in their 
hand, there is nothing you can do about it--in the hands of a 
terrorist. There is nothing you can do. You can't get it back. But you 
can always secure a Second Amendment right through an appropriate due 
process mechanism.
  Today we have struck that balance. We have worked very hard to try 
and come up with a proposal that can achieve bipartisan support. I 
would ask everyone in this body to take a second look, think about the 
balance, but also talk to the vast majority of gun owners in your State 
who would say: We agree with this proposal. We agree with it--no fly, 
no buy.
  Let's protect the American people. Let's protect the Second 
Amendment. Let's do what we are supposed to do here, which is to 
achieve a balance that actually protects the American people but also 
protects our Constitutional liberties.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1 minute remaining.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Would the Senator from Maine like to have 1 minute to 
conclude?
  Ms. COLLINS. I thank my colleague very much.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield such time to the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, this amendment is a commonsense approach 
to help make Americans safer. And I think it is highly significant that 
we have just received a letter that is signed by a group of generals 
and admirals who have been on the frontlines in fighting terrorism--
people like General Petraeus--who are endorsing the bipartisan 
amendment that we have put forth.
  Mr. President, let's not miss this opportunity to make a difference, 
to get something done. Let's listen to the heartbroken families in 
Orlando, in San Bernardino, in other terrorist attacks. This is common 
sense. It does not infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of 
Americans. All it does is say that if you are too dangerous to board an 
airplane, you are too dangerous to buy a gun. I urge my colleagues to 
support our amendment.

  I thank the Senator from Maryland.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 
minutes, equally divided, prior to each vote today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Motion to Commit with Amendment No. 4858

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to table the motion to commit 
with instructions, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?

[[Page S4535]]

  There is a sufficient second.
  There is 2 minutes of debate, equally divided.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield back.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. 
Feinstein) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily 
absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 109 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Lankford
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--52

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coats
     Collins
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Flake
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Reid
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Toomey
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Feinstein
     Sanders
       
  The motion was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                           Amendment No. 4859

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to table the Johnson amendment 
No. 4859 to the instructions of the motion to commit, and I ask for the 
yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes, equally divided, for 
debate.
  The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I would like to ask all of my colleagues 
a simple question: How many more constitutional rights are we going to 
give up in response to Islamic terror?
  Coming from a business background, I certainly found out the way to 
reach agreement is to try to find areas of agreement. Here is something 
we can all agree on. Nobody in this Chamber, no American wants to see 
weapons transferred into the hands of terrorists or would-be 
terrorists. We can agree on that. We are so close. I applaud Susan 
Collins and our other colleagues for trying to work to a bipartisan 
agreement to try to accomplish that goal.
  My amendment simply adds due process on the front end. Otherwise, it 
is pretty much identical to what the other Senators on a bipartisan 
basis were trying to achieve. Please, let's continue to work together. 
Let's try to find those areas of agreement to accomplish the goal of 
keeping weapons out of the hands of terrorists, would-be terrorists, 
while not giving up our constitutional rights.
  I ask my colleagues to please vote to not table my amendment so we 
can continue this discussion and find areas of agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I want the Senator to know our side does 
support the Second Amendment, but we support all of the amendments of 
the Constitution--not just one. One of those is the right to speech, 
and implicit in that is maybe to get a real vote on real substance.
  I yield to the Senator from North Dakota to far more articulate the 
substance. Let's not only support the Constitution but the oath we took 
to defend all people against enemies, foreign and domestic, and that is 
what we want to do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, we have been asked to vote on this. It 
is 20 pages--20 pages that we were just handed. We asked DOJ to help us 
analyze this so we can best evaluate whether that is a good vote. 
According to the DOJ, this would not stop them from denying one person 
a gun.
  We are here to say no-fly, no-buy. This doesn't do it. As we work 
through the Collins amendment, I suggest we continue to have those 
discussions, but we have a vehicle on the floor where we can have 
further discussions with any Senator who wants to continue to have a 
conversation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The yeas and nays have been previously ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. 
Feinstein) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily 
absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 67, nays 31, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 110 Leg.]

                                YEAS--67

     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Lee
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Paul
     Peters
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--31

     Alexander
     Blunt
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Ernst
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Lankford
     Manchin
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Perdue
     Portman
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Scott
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Feinstein
     Sanders
       
  The motion was agreed to.

                          ____________________