[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 123 (Wednesday, July 14, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4886-S4888]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                     Nomination of David H. Chipman

  Mr. BRAUN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to oppose the 
confirmation of David Chipman, President Biden's nominee for Director 
of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
  Many Hoosiers are concerned about the nomination of Mr. Chipman, and 
rightfully so. His statements have made one thing clear: If confirmed, 
he will fail to uphold the constitutional right to bear arms.
  He has stated under oath that he supports mandatory Federal 
registration of common semiautomatic firearms and ultimately supports a 
ban on AR-15 rifles.
  Semiautomatic sporting rifles can be found in the homes of millions 
of law-abiding Americans, Hoosiers included, who use them for hunting, 
recreational shooting, and defending their families.
  The ATF has a responsibility to clearly articulate its decisions to 
the public. In his confirmation hearing, Mr. Chipman revealed that he 
is not able to articulate what an assault rifle even is. His beliefs 
represent, in my opinion, a direct attack on our Second Amendment 
rights.
  It is no surprise that organizations that have never opposed an ATF 
nominee before are loudly opposing the nomination of David Chipman.
  Mr. Chipman's nomination comes as the ATF is already in need of more 
accountability for politicized decisions. American gun owners, 
manufacturers, and small business owners deserve clarity and the right 
to appeal politicized decisions made by the ATF.
  Currently, the ATF engages in a secretive, behind-the-scenes 
classification review process to decide if a firearm will be regulated 
by the National Firearms Act. No law-abiding American should have to 
wonder if they are going to suddenly be made a criminal by a 
bureaucratic decision. It doesn't make sense.
  That is why I joined Representative   Dan Crenshaw in the House to 
introduce the ATF Accountability Act. Law-abiding gun manufacturers and 
small businesses should be able to appeal the legal status of 
classifications within a regular timeframe.
  I yield the floor at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I want to thank my friend and colleague 
Senator Braun for leading this important discussion on protecting 
Second Amendment rights for Montanans and for all Americans.
  Today, President Biden and Chuck Schumer are propping up yet another 
very controversial nominee, one who far from unites us as Americans--
rather, another nominee who divides us further. Sadly, we are 
witnessing a complete disregard for our Constitution.
  The Constitution could not be clearer. Now, I know my Democratic 
colleagues may want to say it otherwise, but it is clear--it is very 
clear when it says--and I have my pocket Constitution here. It says, 
``the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be 
infringed.'' It is very strong and very clear language. Montanans and 
the American people are guaranteed this right, as protected in our 
Constitution.
  Despite this, we have seen President Biden and far-left Democrats 
abandon

[[Page S4887]]

this right to fit their own gun-grabbing agenda. Their latest attack on 
the Second Amendment is the nomination of a registered anti-gun 
lobbyist, who has called for the ban of certain firearms, to lead the 
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. This is the very agency that 
oversees firearms.
  It is unbelievable. Putting David Chipman in charge of the ATF is 
like putting an arsonist in charge of the fire department. He has a 
very hostile record toward the Second Amendment, and this hostile 
record against law-abiding gun owners speaks loud and clear.
  It is interesting to look at the 2020 data that is coming in. Forty 
percent of the firearms sold in our country last year were to first-
time buyers of a firearm--40 percent. Why? The American people want to 
be able to defend themselves.
  As we are seeing the far left push to defund law enforcement, defund 
the police, and we see the anarchy going on across the cities of 
America, the lawlessness, the high murder rates, the violence, it is no 
wonder that more Americans now say: I want to own a firearm myself to 
protect myself.
  If confirmed, Mr. Chipman would help the Democrats push their gun-
grabbing agenda. We can't allow the left to continue this attack on our 
precious constitutional rights. David Chipman would be a disaster to 
the Second Amendment rights of Montanans and all Americans. The Senate 
must oppose Mr. Chipman's nomination for the sake of protecting our 
Second Amendment rights.
  We must also pass some commonsense legislation that protects the 
Second Amendment, like what Senator Braun of Indiana is trying to do 
with his ATF Accountability Act. I support him in his efforts to pass 
this commonsense legislation.
  I urge all my colleagues to join me in opposing Mr. Chipman's 
nomination to lead the ATF and encourage my colleagues to pass and 
support Senator Braun's ATF Accountability Act.
  I yield back my time to the Senator from Indiana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1920

  Mr. BRAUN. Mr. President, here in a moment, I am going to ask for 
unanimous consent on the ATF Accountability Act and the Protecting the 
Right to Keep and Bear Arms Act.
  Governor Cuomo has declared gun violence a public health emergency in 
New York. ``We want to do with gun violence what we just did with 
COVID,'' Governor Cuomo says.
  During the pandemic, Governor Cuomo and other elected officials used 
the public health emergency to infringe upon Americans' constitutional 
rights. They barred Americans from exercising their freedom of religion 
by closing churches. They infringed upon Americans' right to assemble 
by banning many gatherings, and now gun control activist organizations 
are pressuring President Biden to declare gun violence as a public 
health emergency.
  Doing so would allow the administration to take Executive action to 
hold up gun sales.
  Declaring a public health emergency should not give the executive 
branch the right to infringe upon our Second Amendment. This is why I 
introduced the Protecting the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Act to stop 
this. This bill would prevent the White House from declaring an 
emergency for the purpose of imposing gun control.
  I took an oath to represent Hoosiers and protect their Second 
Amendment rights. That is why I will oppose the nomination of David 
Chipman and why I will ask for unanimous consent to pass the ATF 
Accountability Act and the Protecting the Right to Keep and Bear Arms 
Act.
  Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration 
of S. 1920 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; 
further, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a 
third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered 
made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
  Mr. DURBIN. I read this bill, and I am not sure the Senator from 
Indiana really wants to do what this bill says because the bill makes 
it a priority that this Agency, Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms--a 
priority if there is a request from a licensed manufacturer, importer, 
or dealer, a request of the Agency for information questions on 
regulatory matters, puts timelines on them, deadlines.
  It says that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and 
Explosives--the Attorney General shall--shall--not later than 90 days 
after the receipt of such a request or question make a ruling or 
determination.
  Well, you think to yourself, if this Agency has very little to do 
with thousands of employees, then perhaps the timeliness of response 
from the industry would merit some 90-day deadline. But the Senator in 
introducing this completely overlooks the obvious. This legislation 
would force ATF to take resources and manpower away from their other 
activities and put them into answering regulatory inquiries with a 90-
day deadline in his bill.
  So what are the other duties that will be taking the ATF agents away 
from? Well, the Senator is from Indiana, my neighboring State, and I am 
sure when he goes to northwestern Indiana, he hears a lot about the 
city of Chicago. Well, it was last weekend, on the Fourth of July 
weekend, that there were 104 people shot in the city of Chicago, 19 
died. There were 13 children who were shot and two law enforcement 
agents.
  What is the responsibility of the Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and 
Explosives Bureau when it comes to this kind of mass shooting that is 
taking place in the city I am honored to represent but breaks my heart 
to hear those numbers?
  They are supposed to be investigating the gun violence. They are 
supposed to be gathering the information and evidence so they can work 
with the prosecutors to stop this mass shooting. Unfortunately, the 
Senator from Indiana said, no, that is not your priority at ATF; your 
priority is to answer regulatory questions from gun dealers and 
manufacturers. And you have 90 days to do it, no matter what else is 
going on. Oh, you may be going after somebody who is guilty in a mass 
killing and a mass shooting; put it aside. You have a bookkeeping 
question. That is one of the provisions in here. You have a bookkeeping 
question that should take priority over anything else you are doing. 
Stop preparing information and evidence for trial, answer the industry 
questions on regulations. That is your highest priority--at least that 
is what your bill says.
  So I look at this, and I think, in the reality of gun violence and 
death and the crimes that are being committed, ATF has the most 
important role of keeping us safe. I want them to be efficient in 
dealing with the industry. But that is not their highest priority, as 
far as I am concerned. The highest priority is to keep America safe and 
to do something about gun violence. And for that reason, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Smith). The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. BRAUN. Madam President, a quick response to that before I ask 
unanimous consent on the next item is that that is an argument I hear 
so often, that the city that supports some of the toughest State gun 
laws and local laws that ends up having the statistics that no one 
would want to have across our country and then would try to cast that 
blame on a neighboring State tells me that you are looking in the wrong 
place to solve the problem.
  The ATF here, we are just wanting clarity--that is the purpose of 
this act, and I suggest that my friend from Illinois look at some of 
the more basic issues that might be underlying what is happening there.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1916

  Madam President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous 
consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further 
consideration of S. 1916 and the Senate proceed to its immediate 
consideration; further, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be 
considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

[[Page S4888]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Let me say, initially, I did not mention the issue of the 
source of crime guns in Illinois. The Senator from Indiana raised it. 
And since he did, I want to make a record of it
  When we trace the crime guns in Illinois, we find an alarming 
percentage of them coming from gun shows in your State right next to 
Illinois. The bad guys get on the Skyway, drive over to northwest 
Indiana gun shows and buy guns at those shows without background checks 
and come back and commit crime in Chicago and other neighborhoods.
  That is a fact. You may not like it; I certainly don't like it. But 
we ought to be doing something about that instead of worrying about the 
gun manufacturers and the gun salesmen and whether or not they are 
going to get special treatment from this Agency.
  But let me address the second matter that is before us, and this is 
Senator Braun's request for S. 1916, Protecting the Right to Keep and 
Bear Arms. I want to set the record straight at the outset. Current 
Federal law, the Stafford Act, prohibits the Federal Government from 
seizing lawfully owned guns during a period of a major disaster or 
emergency. It is on the books. That is the law.
  The Stafford Act is also clear that during a major disaster 
emergency, the Federal Government is prohibited from creating new 
registration requirements for guns, new prohibitions on gun possession, 
or new prohibitions on the lawful carrying of firearms. That is on the 
books already. So current law already protects guns that people own 
legally during periods of disaster or emergency. But the Senator's bill 
goes much further than that.
  Section 4 of the bill would amend the Stafford Act--get this--to say 
that the Federal Government also cannot prohibit the manufacture or 
sale or transfer of guns or ammunition during a disaster or emergency. 
There are several problems with this.
  First, current law has exceptions that allow the government to 
continue enforcing laws already on the books during a disaster. This 
includes laws that prohibit convicted felons from possessing guns. Your 
bill does not make that exception. I am sure you don't want to do that. 
I hope you will look at your bill. In other words, under the bill, as I 
read it, during a major disaster or emergency, the government would be 
barred from any prohibition of gun sales, even from enforcing the 
current prohibition on the sale of guns to convicted felons.
  That doesn't make sense. I am sure that is not what want you want to 
do, but that is what your bill says. I hope it is not what you 
intended, and I am sure it is not. So please look at it carefully.
  There are also legitimate reasons why the government might need to 
temporarily prohibit guns being sold in a disaster area. Here is 
something that is not outlandish. Suppose the background check system 
has been knocked offline in a disaster area. We wouldn't want felons 
taking advantage of that situation to walk into a gun dealer and buy 
guns that they are ineligible to buy.
  Current law ensures that the government can't take anyone's lawfully 
owned guns away from them during a disaster, but there is no clear 
justification for granting untouchable status to gun sales during the 
disaster. This bill needs some work. I hope we will not pass it in a 
hasty manner. And in light of these and other concerns, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Illinois