[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Motion to Recommit Withdrawn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 The motion is withdrawn.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.
____________________