[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 105 (Tuesday, June 21, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3021-S3023]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            GUN LEGISLATION

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, 28 days ago, an 18-year-old young man 
opened fire on students at the Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, TX. He 
murdered 21 people--19 children and 2 teachers. In the process, he 
effectively committed suicide as well.
  This was an attack that was so cruel, so brutal, and inhumane that it 
has brought much of our Nation to its knees in mourning. Since the 
shooting, my office has received--as I am sure many other Members of 
Congress have--I have received tens of thousands of calls and letters 
and emails with a singular message: Do something.
  Do something. Not do nothing, but do something. Texans are disgusted 
and outraged by what happened at Robb Elementary, and they want 
Congress to take appropriate action to prevent the loss of more 
innocent lives.
  I don't want us to pass a bill for the purpose of checking a box. I 
want to make sure we actually do something useful, something that is 
capable of becoming a law, something that will have the potential to 
save lives.
  I am happy to report as a result of the hard work of a number of 
Senators in this Chamber that we have made some serious progress. In 
particular, over the last few weeks, Mr. Murphy, the Senator from 
Connecticut; Ms. Sinema, the Senator from Arizona; Mr. Tillis, the 
Senator from North Carolina; and I have searched high and low for 
common ground.
  Now, there are some people who would say, What is the use? Why try? 
We know this is an issue that divides much of the country, depending on 
where you live, and maybe even divides people living in the same 
household. But I think we have found some areas where there is space 
for compromise. And we have also found that there are some redlines and 
no middle ground. We have talked; we have debated; we have disagreed; 
and, finally, we have reached an agreement among the four of us. But, 
obviously, this is not something that will become law or fail to become 
law because of a small group of Senators.
  The truth is we had a larger group of 20 Senators--10 Republicans and 
10 Democrats--come forward and sign on to an agreed set of principles, 
and I believe as Senators see the text that supports those principles, 
they will see we have tried our best to be true as to what we said 
those agreed principles should be.
  So soon, very soon--not soon enough for me--but very soon, we will 
see the text of bipartisan legislation that will help keep our children 
and our communities safer.
  We know there is no such thing as a perfect piece of legislation. We 
are imperfect human beings. But we have to try, and I believe this bill 
is a step in the right direction.
  One of the pillars of this legislation is support for community-based 
mental health care. Following the violent attacks, we have all heard 
about missed signs, and the fact is the New York Times recently 
profiled the type of young man: typically alienated, isolated, not 
receiving any sort of support or medical or psychiatric care, certainly 
not complying with their doctors' orders when it comes to taking their 
medication that allows them to manage their mental illness challenges.
  We know that this profile is one that Salvador Ramos fit, the shooter 
in Uvalde. He was a deeply troubled young man. He was isolated. He was 
bullied in school. He cut himself because he said he liked the way it 
made him look. It made him look tough. He had a history of fighting, of 
assaulting fellow students, of threatening sexual assault of young 
women, and torturing and killing animals. It is a familiar profile.
  This man, this young man, I think was crying out for help. But he got 
no help, notwithstanding the best efforts of people around him. He shot 
his own grandmother before he went to Robb Elementary School because 
she wanted

[[Page S3022]]

him to go back to the classroom after being out of the classroom for 2 
years because of COVID mitigation practices.
  So our goal with this legislation is to try to help people in crisis 
get treatment before they reach a point like Salvador Ramos.
  Now, I want to be clear: Not everybody who is suffering a mental 
health crisis is a threat to themselves and others. Matter of fact, the 
opposite is true. Many people suffer in silence with their parents, 
their families, their siblings, trying to help them to no avail. But 
there is a small subset of people like Salvador Ramos who are a danger 
to themselves and others if they don't get the kind of help they need.
  So the provision of the bill which represents the single largest 
investment in community-based mental health treatment in American 
history is drawn from bipartisan legislation introduced by Senator 
Stabenow and Senator Blunt. I think there are eight demonstration 
projects around the country. We want to make this kind of access to 
community-based mental health care available all across the country, 
and our bill will help to do that.
  It expands high-quality mental health and addiction services 
nationwide through the expansion of certified community behavioral 
health clinics.
  Many of these providers already operate in communities across the 
country, but our legislation expands the networks of clinics to deliver 
even stronger and more fulsome support to our communities.
  We also include provisions to expand support of care in our schools 
because it is at school that many of our young people will be 
identified as needing support.
  Teachers actually spend more time than parents, typically, with our 
school-aged children; and the supported services that will be part of 
this bill will help identify students that need that help so that 
intervention can come as early as possible.
  As the Presiding Officer probably knows, 60 percent of gun deaths in 
America are suicides--suicides. We not only want to try our best to do 
things that will hopefully stop the Salvador Ramoses in the future from 
hurting other people, we want to try to help them and keep them from 
hurting themselves as well.
  So I believe this huge investment in America's mental health delivery 
system is an investment in safer and healthier communities.
  Another pillar of the legislation is school safety. The Uvalde 
shooter was able to enter Robb Elementary School through a door that 
was not locked when it should have been. That is an obvious 
vulnerability. Schools need to be prepared for the worst-case scenario, 
which means evaluating physical security measures, reviewing current 
protocol, adopting best practices, which are broadly available through 
publications and studies by the Secret Service and other law 
enforcement agencies. And they also need to be able to add or expand 
the number of school resource officers as appropriate.
  I have said it before, and I will say it again: No parent should have 
to send their child to school fearful for their child's safety, and no 
child should have to go to school and be afraid for their safety.
  All of our students and teachers and the administrators and others in 
our schools deserve to feel safe, and parents deserve peace of mind, 
and that is what I hope these additional resources will provide.
  Now, the final range portion of this bill beyond mental health and 
school safety involves a range of provisions to prevent these sort of 
violent attacks from occurring in the future.
  Again, I believe that law-abiding citizens are not the problem. I 
don't believe law-abiding citizens are a threat to public health, and 
this bill honors that commitment.
  So unless a person is convicted of a crime or is adjudicated mentally 
ill, their ability to purchase a firearm will not be impacted by this 
legislation.
  Now, some have suggested provisions that I believe would infringe on 
Second Amendment rights and really not get to the root of the problem.
  For example, there is no particular ban on a type of gun or no 
mandatory waiting periods, no background checks of intrafamily or 
friend-to-friend transfer, none of these are included in the 
legislation. And some of our colleagues clearly would like to see that. 
But, again, that is because law-abiding gun owners are not the problem.
  What we are trying to do is prevent dangerous individuals from 
unleashing violence on their communities. And one way of achieving that 
goal is through more robust crisis intervention programs.
  Now, that is a broad term that describes a range of initiatives that 
aim to reduce violence, protect the public, and connect individuals in 
crisis with the help they need.

  It could include something called assisted outpatient treatment, 
which allows courts to order people with mental health challenges to 
receive outpatient treatment to ensure they receive the care they 
needed, and the court will hold them accountable to make sure they make 
the doctors' appointments and take the medications they need in order 
to remain productive.
  But beyond AOTs--or assisted outpatient treatment--there are very 
effective regimes like mental health courts, like I saw in Dallas, TX, 
not that long ago.
  Now, one of the things that encourages compliance is the fact that 
you have a judge, somebody wearing a black robe, saying: You will do 
this. And if that is what it takes, that is fine with me. But there are 
also drug courts, veterans' courts, and the like which aim to treat the 
root cause, not the symptom. And across the country, there are hundreds 
of mental health and veterans' treatment courts and thousands of drug 
court programs that have delivered incredible results.
  I have been clear at the outset that I am interested in providing law 
enforcement-related grants to all 50 States to put forward a range of 
crisis intervention programs that the State deems best to help reduce 
suicide and violence.
  Now, some of our colleagues wanted to focus this money solely on the 
19 States that have passed some form of red flag law, and, frankly, 
that is a choice that is up to the State. But we are not introducing a 
national red flag law, but we are providing the availability of law 
enforcement-related grants to crisis intervention programs, whether you 
adopted a red flag program or not. Perhaps you have chosen something 
different. Well, this grant program will get every State funding that 
implements programs that they themselves have adopted to stop 
individuals in crisis from reaching the point of violence or self-harm.
  If any State wants to pass a law, obviously, under our Constitution, 
they have plenary authority to pass whatever crisis intervention laws 
they choose to do so. But one of the things that we have agreed upon is 
they have to have robust due process protections because we are talking 
about a constitutional right.
  So if the new law does not include due process protections, it will 
not be eligible for these grants, no matter what form that crisis 
intervention program takes.
  Our bill also provides increased protection for domestic violence 
victims. It shouldn't matter whether a person is married to their 
abuser, if the abuser is convicted of domestic violence, and many 
people have what I would call nontraditional relationships, whether 
they are living together, they have a child together, or whether they 
just have a long-term romantic or intimate relationship. Eighty-six 
percent of gun-owning households support that sort of protection for 
domestic violence victims, where, too often, a gun is involved.
  Again, this doesn't limit law-abiding gun owners' rights unless 
somebody is convicted of domestic abuse under their State laws. Their 
gun rights will not be impacted.
  Again, this portion of the bill includes critical due process 
protections which, as we all know, is part of our Constitution. You 
shall not be deprived of your rights without due process of law.
  One new feature that we proposed is that those who are convicted of 
nonspousal misdemeanor domestic abuse--not felony but misdemeanor 
domestic violence--will have an opportunity after 5 years to have their 
Second Amendment rights restored, but they have to have a clean record. 
And this is an incentive, in fact, I think, for people

[[Page S3023]]

who have made a mistake and have committed domestic violence and 
received a misdemeanor conviction to straighten up their act and to not 
repeat it.
  Our bill also strengthens the National Instant Criminal Background 
Check System, known as NICS, to ensure it is more fulsome and accurate.
  In Uvalde, this young man, Salvador Ramos, turned 18. He went in and 
passed a background check. It is like he was born yesterday because 
there was no way for the National Instant Criminal Background checks 
system to look back on any mental health adjudications or criminal 
convictions, which would have barred him from purchasing a firearm had 
it occurred as an adult.
  If a 17-year-old is convicted of a violent crime or adjudicated as 
mentally incompetent, that information should show up in the background 
check system if he tries to purchase a firearm when he turns 18.
  Eighty-seven percent of gun-owning households in America support 
making juvenile records available in the background check system, and 
this legislation will make that possible.
  Now, the States will control what information they are willing to 
share, but our legislation provides an incentive for States to upload 
the records that reflect on the suitability of an individual to 
purchase a firearm, allow them to upload juvenile records into the 
National Instant Criminal Background System to ensure that firearms are 
not falling into the hands of those under 21 who would be prohibited 
from purchasing that gun if they were an adult when it happened.
  So I know this bill is not going to please everyone. Some think it 
goes too far; others think it doesn't go far enough, and I get it. But 
the nature of compromise and the nature of actually wanting to get a 
result requires that everybody try to find common ground where we can, 
and that is particularly hard in a 50-50 U.S. Senate.
  But I believe the same people who are telling us to do something are 
sending us a clear message to do what we can to keep our children and 
communities safe. I am confident this legislation moves us in a 
positive direction.
  I want to thank all of our colleagues who have worked so hard in this 
process that has gotten us this far. My understanding is that the text 
will be released essentially at any moment, although the principles 
upon which that text is written have been public for quite a while now.
  This legislation is the product of good-faith, bipartisan 
negotiations. It includes bills and ideas offered by colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle, and it makes changes that are supported by vast 
majorities of Americans. And I think, most importantly, it has the real 
potential to become a law and to create real changes in communities 
across this country--safer, healthier communities; stronger, more 
secure schools; saving lives. That is what we are all about.
  So I am eager to discuss more details with our colleagues as they 
review the text in the coming days, and I hope we can continue to show 
the same sort of good faith and the openness to other ideas that have 
brought us to this point as we debate and we vote on this bipartisan 
legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________