[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 108 (Wednesday, July 6, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H4279-H4280]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             CONSENSUS BILL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Jolly) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. JOLLY. Mr. Speaker, in the wake of continued terror around the 
globe and here at home, the American people are rightfully asking what 
solutions exist within the Halls of Congress, and they are rightfully 
asking questions about national security and, yes, about the Second 
Amendment and about firearms.
  The numbers don't lie. Eighty-five percent of Americans believe that 
if you are being investigated for terror, you should not be able to 
purchase a firearm; but 88 percent of Americans also believe that this 
body should follow the Constitution.
  The congressional approval rating--not 58 percent, not 88 percent--is 
somewhere around 10 percent. Why? It is because the American people 
want to see a Congress that is governing, a Congress that is solving 
problems. We each run on closely held convictions, and we should honor 
those every day in the Halls of this body.
  The days of reaching consensus seem to be imperiled, seem to be just 
out of reach. We prioritize the politics of blame over the politics of 
governing. We prioritize the politics of November over the politics of 
now.
  In the past few weeks, this conflict has played out in very real time 
on very closely held issues, personal issues right here in this well. 
My friends on the left want to vote on a bill that will lose. It will 
lose. We on the right are often chastised for bringing up legislation 
that will be vetoed, with the question, ``Why even go down that road?'' 
The same questions can be asked about why do we demand a vote on a bill 
that will lose, and it will lose based on constitutional convictions 
about a lack of due process in the current draft of the no fly, no buy 
bill.
  Eighty-eight percent of Americans support the Constitution, and that 
includes due process. Current restrictions on firearm purchases are all 
post-adjudication--if you have been adjudicated mentally incompetent, 
if you have been adjudicated and convicted of a violent crime, if you 
have been adjudicated and separated dishonorably from the Armed Forces.
  But a no fly, no buy list with no process says there is no 
adjudication, and that raises constitutional convictions, which is why 
that bill would go down. My friends on the right are rightfully 
concerned over a slippery slope about the Second Amendment, a 
fundamental right to purchase and bear firearms.
  We can't let this debate end in inaction, which is the great fear of 
the next 2 weeks. The truth is we can protect the Second Amendment, we 
can protect due process, and we can protect communities throughout the 
country, which is why I have introduced H.R. 5544 as a consensus bill. 
Is it perfect? Perhaps not, but work with me to make it better.
  It says this: If you are being investigated as a terror suspect, you 
can't buy a firearm. But if your government denies you the right to 
purchase that firearm, your government has 10 days to notify you they 
did so because you are being investigated.
  You are then entitled to a due process hearing within 30 days at 
which the government has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the 
evidence to prove why you shouldn't be able to purchase a firearm. The 
individual is entitled to see all unclassified evidence, and the 
hearing remains private to protect the interests of the individual and 
the interests of government.
  My bill would also notify law enforcement if somebody who is the 
subject of a closed investigation later tries to purchase a firearm. We 
can probably make it better together. We can add reimbursement of court 
fees. We can allow a provision in the Collins bill that says law 
enforcement should be allowed to let a transfer go through if it helps 
an investigation as opposed to hindering it.
  To the left, it provides no fly, no buy with due process. To the 
right, it protects the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is not 
infringed because someone is being investigated. It is infringed 
because someone is denied the right to purchase a firearm, which is why 
my bill finally provides due process and puts the burden of proof on 
the government if that right is denied.
  We can do this. We can actually do this. We can reach consensus on 
both sides of the aisle. The real scandal in

[[Page H4280]]

this town right now is not about sit-ins. The real scandal is not about 
inaction. The real scandal is that this isn't that hard. This isn't 
that hard.
  Eighty-five percent of Americans say no fly, no buy. Eighty-eight 
percent say support the Constitution. So let's do that. Let's stand 
with those who support no fly, no buy. Let's stand with those who 
support the Constitution. And let's give some level of hope to cling 
to, to the 90 percent of this country who disapprove of what is 
happening in this Chamber right now.
  A demand for a bill that will go nowhere only promises inaction that 
makes its way into political commercials in November. Ignoring the fact 
that America wants no fly, no buy is also catering to the politics of 
November.
  Let's cast aside this current debate and recognize that the solutions 
are right in front of us if we extract the politics out of this.

                          ____________________