[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5291-5294]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               SAFE COMMUNITIES, SAFE SCHOOLS ACT OF 2013

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 649, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 649) to ensure that all individuals who should 
     be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the 
     national instant criminal background check system and require 
     a background check for every firearm sale, and for other 
     purposes.

  Pending:

       Manchin amendment No. 715, to protect Second Amendment 
     rights, ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited 
     from buying a firearm are listed in the National Instant 
     Criminal Background Check System, and provide a responsible 
     and consistent background check process.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 12:30 
p.m. will be for debate only.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am glad we are proceeding on this very 
important legislation. The American people might be wondering why the 
Senate has not been voting on any amendments to the pending gun 
legislation.
  The Senate voted on Thursday to proceed to the bill. This followed 
calls that the Senate should debate the bill, and that is why I said I 
am glad we are getting to it. There has been very little debate. The 
President has said various proposals deserve a vote. We, on this side 
of the aisle, don't intend to stand in the way of proceeding on those 
votes, particularly on the amendments. So I hope we are able to vote 
very soon.
  Last week Senator Manchin and Senator Toomey unveiled an amendment on 
background checks. The media hailed the agreement as a way to pass gun 
control. The majority announced that the Manchin-Toomey amendment would 
be the first one we vote on. Since we are just starting the debate now, 
obviously we have not voted on the amendment.
  We have not voted because despite claims from the other side, 
background checks are not and never have been the sweet spot of the gun 
control debate. We have not voted on it because supporters don't have 
the votes to pass it--at least at this point that is the way it appears 
to me--and I think they know it.
  They don't have the votes even though published reports indicate that 
Vice President Biden, the President of the Senate, has been calling 
Senators and asking them to support the Manchin-Toomey bill. They must 
not be telling him what he wants to hear. They don't have the votes for 
background checks even though the Vice President has reportedly stated 
that the opposition to the proposal comes only from the ``black 
helicopter'' crowd.
  Well, it doesn't come from that point.
  The Manchin-Toomey amendment would impose new obligations on law-
abiding gun owners. It would do so even though expanding gun background 
checks would have done nothing to stop Newtown or other mass killings. 
It would do so even though expanding background checks would do nothing 
to prevent these killings in the future.
  I often quote the Deputy Director of the National Institute of 
Justice, who recently wrote that background checks could work only if 
they were universal and were accompanied by gun registration. Of 
course, most Members of the Senate oppose gun registration. They know 
what has happened historically with gun registration. In other 
countries it has led to gun confiscation, and Members of the Senate--
but more importantly, lots of people appearing at our town meetings--
fear that could happen and don't want to go down that road.
  Supporters of the background check amendment claim that it 
strengthens the rights of gun owners; but, in fact, it does not. The 
fact is the opposite is true. Opposition to the amendment does not come 
from the fringe elements of society. In fact, one of the reasons the 
Senate has not voted on the amendment is the widespread opposition to 
the amendment from many quarters. If only fringe elements had problems 
with it, we would be voting on this amendment. So keep watching. If we 
do not vote on the Manchin-Toomey amendment, it means the proponents of 
that idea know they don't have the votes to pass it. If we turn to 
assault weapons or magazines, then it is clear to all that the majority 
knows it is far from the number of votes they need. I think people are 
going to be waiting while they try to pick up the votes that will 
probably never be there.
  Meanwhile, on this side of the aisle, our caucus hopes to have their 
amendments considered soon and to vote on those amendments. Our 
amendments, unlike the Manchin-Toomey amendment, will actually 
strengthen the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners and 
help thwart gun violence by criminals. In fact, there are reports that 
the other side of the aisle wants to block one of our amendments which 
would do exactly that.
  So that is the situation. Maybe there are leaders around here who 
would dispute me, but that is the way I see it.

[[Page 5292]]

The majority doesn't have the votes to pass their amendment, so we are 
not voting. The majority wants to block Republican amendments that they 
fear would pass, so we are not voting on the Republican amendments 
either.
  The Senate voted to proceed to the bill. The Senate voted to have a 
debate. The Senate was promised an open amendment process which would 
mean we would conduct votes on the various amendments that will be 
offered, but so far that has not happened. I hope it will happen soon, 
so I ask that the audience stay tuned.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we are debating one of the most important 
bills we have had before the Senate in a long time. The reason we are 
debating this subject is because of what happened in Newtown, CT, on 
December 14, and the gun violence that takes its toll every day in 
cities all across America, including in my home State of Illinois. We 
know because we read and hear about it in the news and from the 
victims.
  At this moment our Nation is saddened by what happened yesterday in 
Boston. We still don't know what the cause of that was or who was 
responsible for it. I just have to say we are stunned by it.
  Members of the Senate and I--who have worked on the immigration 
bill--had planned to announce that bill today in a press conference. We 
have postponed that announcement out of respect to the people who have 
fallen, those who were injured, and their families. It is a moment of 
grave concern across America which was expressed well by the President 
last night.
  We are waiting for the information and details to build a case on 
those who are responsible. I, for one--and I am sure my colleagues feel 
the same way--don't want to rush to judgment until we have the facts as 
to the parties responsible. The sadness we feel for the victims and the 
sadness we feel for America--an open and free America where people 
stand on the sidelines cheering marathon runners--is one that is 
profound in the Senate today.
  The issue before us now is gun safety. It comes before us because 20 
beautiful little first graders were massacred at their grade school--at 
Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT. Six of their teachers and 
administrators literally gave their lives in defense of those children. 
There is not a parent or grandparent alive who doesn't identify with 
that horrible loss.
  Last week I met with a group of parents, still grieving, from Sandy 
Hook Elementary School who came to Congress to beg us to do something 
to spare future families and future children from this type of 
massacre. I met with them in the morning. As you can imagine, there was 
not a dry eye in the room as they showed me the photographs of their 
beautiful children who are now gone. I commend them for their courage 
and stepping forward.
  Now the question is whether the Senate has the courage to step 
forward. This is not an easy vote politically. I think we know what is 
at stake. I come from a pretty diverse State. I come from downstate 
Illinois, which is more rural. They have small towns and more gun 
owners than the great city of Chicago.
  For 14 years, as a Congressman in downstate Illinois, I ran in an 
area where gun issues were very volatile and very important to many 
people. I took some positions which the gun lobby did not care for, and 
several times they decided they would wage a campaign against me when I 
ran for reelection. I survived their attacks and eventually was elected 
to the Senate.
  This is the first meaningful gun safety legislation we have taken up 
since I was elected to this body over 16 years ago. We are here because 
of what happened in Newtown, CT. There is no question about it.
  I often remind people that it was a little over 2 years ago that one 
of our own, Gabrielle Giffords, a Congresswoman from Arizona, was at a 
town meeting when she was gunned down and shot pointblank in the face. 
We did nothing about it. There were no hearings or changes in the law. 
It was just another gun statistic to many people.
  But Newtown touched our hearts: to think that those beautiful little 
children could be massacred in their grade school classroom. One child 
was shot 11 times with a semiautomatic weapon that was firing off 
rounds as fast as this deranged individual could load it.
  We are here today in the beginning of a debate on this important 
legislation. What is at stake? Well, this is about background checks. 
Here are the basic questions we need to ask: Do we believe the current 
Federal law, which prohibits a convicted felon, a person who is under 
an order from the court to avoid domestic abuse, a person who has been 
judged mentally incompetent--should they be able to buy a gun in 
America?
  Now, 90 percent of Americans say that is an easy question, and the 
answer is, no; they should not be able to buy a gun. In fact, 75 
percent of gun owners say that.
  I come from a family of gun owners. They are responsible, law-abiding 
citizens who would never dream of looking the other way if a convicted 
felon or mentally deranged person wanted to buy a gun. They store their 
guns safely. They use them in a safe manner, and they represent the 
majority of gun owners across America.
  So if this is such an obvious question where 90 percent of Americans 
agree we should not sell guns to those who have been convicted of a 
felony, for example, why is this being debated? What is the big deal? 
It comes down to the second part of the question: What would you 
think--and this Capitol is filled with tourists, many of whom flew on 
airplanes to get here today--if before the plane took off, the flight 
attendant said: Welcome aboard; fasten your seatbelts. We hope everyone 
has a safe flight. Incidentally, the TSA would like to inform everyone 
that they have closely checked the passengers onboard the plane to see 
if they are carrying guns or bombs. We are happy to report we have 
checked 60 percent of them, and they are not carrying guns or bombs. 
Have a nice flight.
  Sixty percent--does that give anybody refuge, consolation, or peace 
of mind? That is what is going on today with the sale of guns. Up to 
forty percent of firearms sold in America today are not subject to 
background checks.
  What difference does that make? I want to tell the story which goes 
back to a moment in history in my State of Illinois which illustrates 
why this is so important. Ricky Byrdsong was the head coach of the 
Northwestern University men's basketball team back in the 1990s. He was 
a great fellow. He was a loving father of three children and a man of 
deep Christian faith.
  On July 2, 1999, Coach Byrdsong was walking with two of his children 
through his neighborhood in Skokie, IL, a great town. A White 
supremacist drove up and shot Ricky Byrdsong to death in front of his 
kids. He was 43 years old.
  This gunman ended up going on a shooting spree for days across 
Illinois and Indiana, randomly targeting African Americans, Jews, and 
Asian Americans. In the end, he killed two and wounded nine.
  Here is the reality. The man who did the shooting never, ever should 
have owned a gun. He was prohibited by law from buying guns because of 
a domestic violence restraining order against him. Before his murderous 
rampage, he tried to buy a gun from a federally licensed dealer in 
Peoria Heights, IL. He was rejected when it was revealed he was 
prohibited from purchasing a gun. But this white supremacist took 
advantage of a gap in our background check laws that still exists 
today. He found an advertisement for guns in the classified ad section 
of a newspaper.
  A gun trafficker named Donald Fiessinger had been buying guns from a 
dealer--over 72 guns in a 2-year period--then turning around and 
reselling them through classified ads to buyers who wouldn't have to go 
through a background check. Ricky Byrdsong's killer bought two handguns 
from Fiessinger without a background check. He then used those guns on 
a shooting spree and killed Ricky Byrdsong on the streets of Skokie in 
front of his children.

[[Page 5293]]

  The amendment before us today would make that more difficult, if not 
impossible. Under the Manchin-Toomey amendment, a background check 
would be required to sell guns advertised in a newspaper. This would 
have shut down the opportunity for Ricky Byrdsong's killer to get this 
murderous weapon. That is one of the issues before us, and it is 
critically important.
  Joe Manchin is from West Virginia. Joe Manchin is a conservative 
Democrat, no question about it; no debate on that issue. Pat Toomey is 
one of the most conservative Republicans from the Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania. The two of them came together and said, Let's write 
something that is respectful of the Second Amendment, respectful of the 
rights of gun owners, but closes the gaps in the law when it comes to 
background checks. I think they have done a good job. But let me add 
quickly they put some things in this amendment I don't like at all. Let 
me be specific.
  The amendment repeals the law that prevents gun dealers from selling 
handguns to out-of-State buyers, and it expands civil immunity to 
unlicensed gun dealers. I don't want to vote for those two things, but 
this is the nature of a compromise and this is the nature of the 
Senate. If we are going to pass this, I have to be prepared to take on 
and accept some issues I personally don't agree with because of the 
larger good. To me, the notion of plugging this 40-percent gap in the 
sale of firearms is so compelling I am prepared to accept parts of this 
amendment I don't like. I am never going to get exactly what I want on 
the floor of the Senate, nor will any Senator, nor should they expect 
to. We have differences of opinion, differences of party, differences 
of philosophy.
  I commend Senators Manchin and Toomey for stepping up. This wasn't 
easy. They could have stepped back and said, Let somebody else do this. 
They haven't. I know they have taken some grief over it. The major gun 
lobby organizations oppose this Manchin-Toomey amendment, but we need 
to do this. Would it have saved the lives of those children at Newtown, 
CT? No. This measure would not have, because the guns he used were 
purchased by his mother who could legally purchase the guns. But it 
could have saved the life of Ricky Byrdsong and it could also save the 
lives of so many others who are being gunned down on the streets 
because people are owning and using guns who have no legal right to 
them. The Manchin-Toomey amendment moves us in the direction of closing 
that gap in the law.
  I know the gun lobby opposes this amendment. I don't know what their 
position is on the underlying bill, but I know that Americans and gun 
owners overwhelmingly support it. So here is the question: Can the 
Senate rise above the political pressure and vote for this measure? We 
need 60 votes, and it means it has to be bipartisan, not just the 
majority on this side of the aisle, but a good number on the other 
side.
  I am encouraged by last week's vote because last week we had a 
preliminary vote, a procedural vote, about whether we were even going 
to debate this issue, and there was a question about it. Before the 
vote came up, 13 Republican Senators, supported by the Republican 
minority leader, sent a public letter saying they were going to oppose 
any effort to even debate the gun issue on the floor of the Senate. It 
looked pretty bad when the Republican leader took that position. But 16 
Republican Senators stepped up and showed, I thought, courage and a 
commitment to this institution by voting with us to move forward on 
this debate. I am not assuming their votes on any issues, but I want to 
commend them in the spirit of this institution which has failed in 
recent years to accept its mandate and deliberate and vote on the most 
important issues of our time. I commend them for remembering that and 
for committing themselves to at least engaging in this debate on the 
floor of the Senate.
  What about background checks and the Second Amendment? Well, the gun 
lobby argues that background checks are unconstitutional, even though 
Justice Scalia made it clear in the Heller decision, which was the 
decision on the Second Amendment that said, basically, the Second 
Amendment is a personal right to bear arms, not the right of a militia, 
which had been argued for years. Scalia said in that decision: ``laws 
imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms'' 
are ``presumptively lawful.'' So there is no doubt, at least in Justice 
Scalia's mind or mine, that a background check is consistent with the 
Second Amendment.
  The gun lobby also argues that background checks are ineffective. We 
have heard this argument: Well, go ahead and pass all the laws you want 
and all the law-abiding citizens will live by them but the criminals 
won't. Here is what they failed to note. Nearly 2 million prohibited 
purchasers have been blocked from buying a gun since background checks 
went into effect. They were so stupid, so careless, they tried to buy a 
gun anyway. They were stopped. The argument, of course, then goes: 
Well, why are there so many gun crimes committed? Well, because they 
get guns through other means which are also addressed by the bill. 
Straw purchases, for example; or through the ads in the newspaper I 
mentioned earlier. And the argument that unless a law is air tight and 
will stop all gun violence we shouldn't pass it--are we going to use 
that standard for speeding on highways or for texting on highways? I 
don't think so. We do our best to set a reasonable standard for the 
good of this society, understanding there will be those who violate the 
law. The same thing holds true for this argument.
  The gun lobby argues we should not improve background checks until we 
prosecute more cases where buyers fail their background checks. Well, 
what of the agency that gathers information for that prosecution--ATF 
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives? If we look to 
that agency, we will note that for years now the gun lobby and the NRA 
have worked to keep this as a leaderless agency and to make sure it 
didn't have the power to enforce the laws on the books. They can't have 
it both ways. They can't stop the ATF from its job and then argue they 
don't prosecute these gun violations seriously.
  Here is the bottom line: We are going to have votes soon to see where 
Members of the Senate stand. Are they going to stand with our police 
officers, religious leaders, teachers, prosecutors, doctors, mayors, 
and the victims of gun violence and their families? Are they going to 
stand with the strong majority of 90 percent of Americans who support 
these reform proposals to save lives in this country? Or, will they 
stand with the gun lobby that refuses to compromise even when lives 
could be saved?
  I know where I am going to stand. I am going to stand with Ricky 
Byrdsong's family and his widow Sherialyn. She wrote me earlier this 
year when I held a hearing on gun violence and this is what she said:

       How a criminal is able to buy a gun with no questions asked 
     is absurd. Something must be done about this.

  An important question from an important person whose life was changed 
forever because we do not have a strong law. I stand with so many other 
families who have suffered tragedy, including those families from 
Newtown who were here last week, as well as the families and the 
victims in my hometown of East St. Louis, IL, and the city of Chicago I 
am honored to represent. They are sick and tired of the gun lobby that 
puts industry profits before common sense and they are tired of the gun 
lobby having its way in Congress year after deadly year.
  I urge my colleagues to join with the majority of Americans who 
support commonsense reforms for gun safety. I urge my colleagues to 
support the compromise Manchin-Toomey amendment and the bipartisan 
legislation on the Senate floor.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page 5294]]


  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the period for debate only on 
the firearms bill, S. 649, be extended until 3:30 p.m. and that I be 
recognized at that time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. We will continue to work on getting an agreement setting 
forth some initial amendments and votes in relation to the gun safety 
legislation. The Republican leaders said they needed to have their 
caucus first. We are hopeful that we will receive a positive response 
to our efforts soon after the two caucus lunches and begin moving 
forward on some initial amendments and votes in relation to gun safety 
legislation.

                          ____________________