[Pages S3110-S3137]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

JOSEPH WOODROW HATCHETT UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE AND FEDERAL BUILDING--
Continued

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Colorado.

S. 2938

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President, next month marks an anniversary that
nobody wants to celebrate: 10 years since 70 people were shot and 12
killed while sitting in a movie theater in Aurora, CO.
At the time, it was the largest mass shooting in American history.
Since then, several shootings, like the Pulse Nightclub and the Las
Vegas shooting, have surpassed that grim milestone.
Most Senators have a similar story of some sort of a mass shooting in
their State that killed people who were trying to enjoy a movie or
worship God or shop for groceries like the 10 people murdered last year
in a supermarket in Boulder or sitting in a fourth grade classroom.
Mass shootings have become uniquely American, a problem that has grown
consistently in the 23 years since the Columbine school attack shook us
all. There were seven school shootings that year. Last year, there were
42.
The Aurora shooting happened when I was Governor, and it has stayed
with me, as those things do. Friday, July 20, 2012, almost 10 years
ago--it was a local premiere of ``The Dark Knight,'' and it was a
packed house. Every seat had a person in it, a person with loved ones
and ones who loved them who expected them to come home that night.
I arrived the next morning at the scene and walked into the command
center that the FBI and the police were using. Aurora Police Chief Dan
Oates showed us a video of the crime scene that had been taken by
police shortly before, using a hand-held camera. The images haunt me
still: popcorn everywhere mixed with bullet casings, random clothing,
and blood. There was blood all over the seats and the floor.
Aurora Mayor Steve Hogan and I spent the afternoon visiting hospitals
all over town. We visited almost every surviving wounded victim. In the
days and weeks and months after that day, we had the gun debate in
Colorado. Of course, we had the debate. What kind of a State would we
be if we were too scared to go to a movie? The debate was difficult and
hard to find agreement.
Guns are a tradition in the West, and Colorado is no exception. We
became the first purple State to successfully pass gun safety laws.
Coloradans, including the vast majority of gun owners, wanted to get
something done. That led to universal background checks and a ban on
high-capacity magazines; not everything--not everything--that we wanted
but steps that made a real difference. We didn't want dangerous people
to have guns.
One night while I was Governor, I came home tired and cranky in the
midst of working on these gun laws. I made the mistake of complaining
to my 11-year-old son Teddy. Teddy couldn't find it in him to
understand why it was so hard. He asked me: Dad, why don't you just
make the decision? It is easy. Get the facts, make a decision, check,
next.
I started to explain, and he repeated: Get the facts, make a
decision, check, next.
He said: Every day I go into school, and I have to learn something
completely new that I didn't know existed the day before. If I don't
get it completely right, the next day is misery because everything is
based on the day before.
Teddy was right about one thing: The facts do matter. Part of our
problem has been not having good data. Many assume passing new laws
like background checks or magazine limits wouldn't work because crooks
don't buy guns from legal dealers. The facts proved that they very much
do. In 2013, 2,782 convicted felons tried to buy a gun in Colorado and
were stopped. Even last year, nearly a decade later, 3,539 convicted
felons were blocked from buying a gun. Laws can work to keep guns out
of the hands of dangerous people.
The solutions are often straightforward. Nonpartisan facts and basic
data help us cut through the noise of division. Guns can be a divisive
issue, to say the least, but we don't accept that there is no room to
get things done.
The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act proves that. For the first time
in three decades, Congress is poised to pass gun legislation that will
make Americans safer, and it is based on the very simple principle: We
all agree we should keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people.
The bill will give States the resources to implement red flag laws to
prevent people who are a danger to themselves or others from buying or
having guns. It will finally close the boyfriend loophole that allows
convicted domestic abusers to get firearms. It will strengthen
background checks for 18- to 21-year-olds and take mental health into
account and will crack down on strawman purchases that allow criminals
to dodge background checks altogether.
Now, these are commonsense proposals, and I am heartened to see that
they are going to pass with bipartisan support, but we all know there
is more that needs to be done to reduce gun violence in America.
The question is, What is next?
For that, we can turn to Teddy's wisdom as an 11-year-old. What we
need is a common set of facts that both sides can accept and can act
on.
In 1970, Congress created the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration to respond to the public outcry over fatal vehicle
crashes. By 2019, there were 60 percent fewer vehicle fatalities than
in 1970. So in that period from 1970 to 2019, fatalities were reduced
60 percent, even though there are now 2\1/2\ times as many cars on the
roads.
The Agency's strength is in its strictly nonpartisan research. It
conducts a survey and a detailed analysis of vehicle fatalities across
the country and forms an objective basis to evaluate vehicle safety
standards and procedures--things like whether airbags and seatbelts can
make a difference or what size and shape child restraints should take,
essentially every safety feature in our cars today.
Why can't we have something similar for guns? We now have more gun
deaths in America than we have deaths from car crashes, and yet for
years, we could barely discuss possible solutions.
So while this Chamber is working together, let's make sure we measure
the success of these bills that we are about to pass. Let's think about
establishing a research body that will create an objective baseline of
hard facts, not conventional wisdom. The path forward is as simple as
my 11-year-old son knew it to be a decade ago: Get the facts, make a
decision, check, next.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.

Coronavirus

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as Senators are preparing to return home to
their home States over the Fourth of July, it is frustrating to me that
we once again kick the can down the road on providing needed funding to
address the ongoing COVID pandemic.
For months, the administration, scientists, and healthcare experts
have raised the alarm that we don't have the resources we need to stay
ahead of this virus. And actually with COVID, if you are not staying
ahead of it, you are slipping behind, to the detriment of all
Americans.
To keep our recovery afloat, we have robbed Peter to pay Paul.
Earlier this month, the administration announced that it is repurposing
$10 billion that we appropriated in Congress--$10 billion--to purchase
additional vaccines and additional therapeutics because our stocks are
running low.
The action by the administration, unfortunately, was necessary.
Projections indicate that as many as 100 million Americans--100 million
Americans--nearly 1 in 3, will be infected or reinfected with COVID
this fall and winter as our immunity from this disease wanes.

[[Page S3111]]

The President requested COVID funding. President Biden requested that
3 months ago. Republicans have blocked this funding. Without new
funding appropriated by Congress, the administration is left with no
choice but to repurpose that $10 billion. Even that, experts across the
board agree, is totally insufficient to prepare for the coming surge.
But even this necessary choice has consequences. To pay for these
vaccines and therapeutics, the administration had to take funding from
research for the next generation of vaccines and to sustain our testing
capacity. It was not, as some Republican Members have indicated, excess
cash that was simply there for the taking. This means that as the next
surge crashes over the country, we will not have the resources
necessary to assure that people can get tested.
Have we already forgotten the mad scramble driving from pharmacy to
pharmacy to get a rapid test so we could safely spend the holidays with
our friends and families just 6 months ago? It means that as new
variants will emerge, we are not going to have the necessary resources
to adequately continue the groundbreaking research we have supported
for next-generation vaccines.
And fueled by our waning immunity and insufficient vaccination
efforts abroad, new variants could emerge, and those will impose new
threats to us here at home.
The desperate measures taken by the administration, which they had to
do in the absence of congressional action, do nothing to support a
global vaccination effort that is running on fumes. The U.S. Agency for
International Development, which manages our global response to the
COVID pandemic, has already obligated more than 95 percent of the funds
they have available--95. Soon, they will have no choice but to start
shutting down their vaccine delivery operations. That will mean more
mutations, more variants, more infections, and more deaths abroad and
at home.

Keep in mind what we are doing with USAID. We are trying to stop this
pandemic outside our borders because we realize that every single one
of these variants is one airplane trip away from crossing our borders
even as we have to do things to stop it within our borders.
Finally, I want to make clear that we don't have time to say, ``Well,
we can act later on,'' as this is not a problem that can be solved by
flipping a switch, or to produce the tens of millions of doses of
vaccines and therapeutics necessary to prepare for a fall surge. The
government and biotech companies need to begin purchasing supplies now.
They can't say: Oh, we have an epidemic. Golly, go out and buy some
supplies.
Well, we have to make them first. Come back to us in a few months.
That doesn't do anything for the people who are getting hit with
COVID.
The longer we wait, the further we will fall behind as other
countries will place their orders ahead of ours.
I tell my friends on the other side of the aisle who are blocking
this money: We can't wait and see what happens. That is why we were
wholly unprepared for the pandemic in the first place. You will recall
the last administration said: We will wait and see what happens.
We refused to invest and prepare for the worst. Let's prepare for the
worst. We can hope for the best, but hope is not a vaccine. Preparation
can create vaccines. I am frustrated, once again, that we are leaving
town without addressing this looming crisis. Since March, I have called
on us to act.
As chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I will continue
to make these calls, and I will fight for these urgently needed
resources, but we have to wake up to the fact that we have to do it
now. You don't do it after the epidemic hits. You don't do the research
after. You try to do the research before and hope you can stop the
pandemic from happening.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Van Hollen). The Senator from Colorado.

S. 2938

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, this morning, the Supreme Court weakened
gun safety laws in America for the first time in over a decade. It
gutted a century's-old law to make sure that people carrying concealed
weapons actually needed them. The Court is taking us backward at a time
when the American people are demanding that we do more, not less, to
protect our communities.
The shooting at Columbine High School happened the year before my
oldest daughter was born. She is now 22 years old. We have raised three
daughters, and their entire generation has grown up in the shadow of
gun violence. Since Columbine, my State has endured one tragedy after
another.
In 2012, a gunman killed 12 people at a movie theater in Aurora.
In 2019, a shooter injured eight students at a STEM high school in
Highlands Ranch.
Last March, a shooter killed 10 people at the King Soopers grocery
store in Boulder. That was almost a year to the day, really, of the
shootings in Buffalo, which took another 10 lives of people who had
just gone to shop for their families.
Two months after that grocery store shooting in Colorado, a gunman
killed six people at a birthday party in Colorado Springs.
Now, I remember back--it is hard because, over time, you lose track
of things--in 2017, after a gunman in Las Vegas killed 58 Americans
after shooting across the street from a hotel room. I came to work the
following Monday, and I realized at about three-quarters of the way
through the day that nobody had talked to me about the shooting. I
don't know whether it was the shooting before that or the two or three
or four before that when we became so desensitized that 58 people could
be killed in Las Vegas, and it wasn't even mentioned the following
Monday.
We cannot allow this to become normal in this country, and the people
of Colorado have refused for this to become normal in this country. It
is not just mass shootings; it is the daily shootings that stalk our
communities like the West Side of Chicago, where I have spent time with
my friend Arne Duncan who, after being the Secretary of Education, has
gone back to his hometown to try to keep young men from killing. They
can't afford for us to continue to just move on and forget that it ever
happened. Communities, once they have been savaged by something like
the Aurora movie theater shooting or the Columbine shooting, never move
on.
The pages here are a little bit younger than my daughters are, but I
can tell you that there is a whole generation of Americans that has
grown up in this country savaged by gun violence and the prospect that
it could happen to them when they go to school the next day or the next
week. You can see it. You can see kids sitting on the couch, cringing,
when they are watching the television reports, wondering whether that
is going to be them or their classmates.
They have carried a burden that no generation of Americans has ever
had to carry. No generation of humans living in the industrialized
world has had to carry this particular burden. Today, our kids are
growing up with a reasonable fear that they could get shot in their
schools or in their temples or in their churches.
I didn't grow up in a country with more gun-related deaths than in
virtually any country in the industrialized world. That was not the
country I grew up in. I grew up in a country with a Second Amendment
but not a country with more shootings than anyplace else in the
industrialized world. Our attitude about this has changed. It is
different from what our parents and grandparents believed, no matter
what party they were in.
After a shooting, I heard somebody on the radio--some well-known talk
show host--say that this was just the price of freedom, that being
victimized in a mass shooting or being worried that your family members
could be killed in a mass shooting was just the price of freedom. That
is not what freedom meant to America when I was growing up. Partly what
freedom means is being free from the fear that you are going to get
gunned down. That is a freedom, and we have denied that freedom to the
next generation of Americans. What a shame that somebody would say
something like that after a mass shooting. What a limited view of what
freedom is. What a surrender that represents to our children and the
victims of these crimes.
In 2020, the leading cause of death for kids in America was guns--
guns--not

[[Page S3112]]

car accidents, not drugs but guns. There was a study that looked at how
many kids, ages 4 or younger, had been killed by guns across 29
industrialized countries. This was of kids 4 or younger in 29
industrialized countries. The United States accounted for 97 percent of
the deaths. This country accounted for 97 percent of the deaths of kids
who were 4 years old and under. What a disgrace. What an indictment.
The entire rest of the industrialized world accounted for 3 percent. We
accounted for 97 percent. We have nearly 200 times the rate of violent
gun deaths as Japan or South Korea and nearly 100 times what they
experience in the United Kingdom.
I can tell you, speaking as a father, it is not because we love our
children any less or because we are uniquely violent or that somehow we
have got a mental health problem that other countries don't have or
that we are mentally more unwell, which I hear some people say. It is
because we have a U.S. Senate, year after year after year, that has
been paralyzed by the National Rifle Association, by the NRA. We have a
Senate that has allowed our kids to get shot in schools, in movie
theaters, in grocery stores, and at concerts but has offered nothing
but thoughts and prayers. We have a Senate that, until now, has failed
to respond to the overwhelming demand of the American people to protect
our communities.
That is what I hear when I go home. I live in a Western State. As you
will hear, we have been able to enact meaningful gun reforms in my
State. If we can make progress in a Western State like Colorado, where
people are demanding it--Democrats, Independents, Republicans, and most
importantly, all of our children are demanding it--we can do it here. I
have said it over and over and over again on this floor after we have
had mass shooting after mass shooting across our country. Finally, for
the first time in a decade, we have the chance to make progress.
I want to thank my colleagues. I really do. I don't mean that in the
usual way that people do when they come out here and say, you know, ``I
thank my colleagues.'' I want to thank my colleagues Chris Murphy and
John Cornyn for leading this really important bipartisan effort.
I strongly support what they have put forward, which would strengthen
background checks for young people buying firearms, so we are checking
their mental health and juvenile records.
It would help States strengthen their red flag laws, which would help
keep guns out of the hands of people who are a threat to themselves or
others. We passed a bill like that already in Colorado.
It would make a historic investment in mental health and school
security. I said a minute ago that sometimes you just hear people
talking about how we have mental health, and I pointed out that we
probably have got the same mental health that other countries in the
world have, but that doesn't mean that it is not an issue. It is an
issue. We are having an epidemic of mental health and behavioral health
on the back end of this pandemic, especially among adolescents in this
country and in the State of Colorado. There is $15 billion in this bill
for mental health, and I am proud that that is in there. That is a
historic investment, and it is both sides that are making it.
We are going to close the boyfriend loophole, which allows abusive
partners to buy a gun. We are going to crack down on straw purchases,
where people illegally buy guns on behalf of someone else. That is a
big problem we are going to address in this bill.
Frankly, I don't know how anybody on this floor could object to any
of those ideas. I don't know how anyone could go home and say they
opposed investing in mental health or making sure they are not letting
a troubled 18-year-old have access to an AR-15 or some other weapon.
On that point, this can't be the end of our work. There is more for
us to do. We should raise the age for buying a semiautomatic weapon
from 18 to 21. We should pass universal background checks. In Colorado,
after Columbine, we passed universal background checks. I have said it
over and over again on this floor. Every year, somewhere around 3
percent of the people who try to buy a gun can't buy a gun in Colorado.
Do you know why they can't buy a gun? Because they are convicted
felons, because they are murderers, because they are domestic abusers.
In the 10, 12 years that I have been coming down here talking about
this, I have challenged people. I have said: Come tell me why Colorado
is not safer with that law in place. There is nobody who has ever come
here and said, ``Here is why you are not safer,'' because obviously we
are safe. The country would be safer and Colorado would be safer if we
pass background checks at the national level.
We should close the gun show loophole. We should limit the size of
magazines, which we also have done in my Western State of Colorado. We
should ban bump stocks. People in Colorado and across the country
overwhelmingly support these steps. But in the meantime, let's pass
this bipartisan proposal.
A few weekends ago--it was actually over the Memorial Day weekend--I
had high school kids--not in the same place and not just one--literally
coming up to me in tears out of desperation that we were not responding
to what had happened in Texas and we hadn't done anything in this
country about guns. I think we need to show them and the young people
who are here today, the young people who are living all over America,
that we aren't so broken that we can't respond to one more massacre of
kids at a school. We need to show them when we have this opportunity to
demonstrate that we are not going to fail again and that we can succeed
in passing this bipartisan bill and that, after all these years, we can
meet the American people's reasonable expectation to begin to protect
our communities against gun violence that happens in the United States
of America and only in the United States of America.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, our country is still mourning the
tragic shootings in Buffalo and Uvalde in which a total of 31 innocent
people were gunned down by teenagers using weapons of war.
While these terrible events get our attention and have in this case
galvanized the Senate to act, they are only 2 of the 279 shootings that
have taken place this year. So it is good that the Senate is now
considering legislation to address the epidemic of gun violence.
The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which we are now considering,
is a good, albeit modest, bill. I am particularly pleased to see that
two issues I have prioritized are addressed in this bill. The first is
grants to State red flag laws, like the law in my home State of
California, which has proven effective at removing guns by people who
have been found by a court to possess a threat, and a provision closing
the boyfriend loophole, which has let too many domestic abusers
continue to possess firearms.
However, while this bill is a step in the right direction, it is far
from the bold action that we need to address mass shootings that occur
on a daily basis. It remains too easy for private citizens to obtain
weapons of war in this country. Sadly, this bill does very little to
address that tragic reality.
Almost 30 years ago, in 1993, I stood on this floor and offered the
amendment to ban the sale and possession of assault weapons. That goal
was simple: Limit access to weapons of war that have no place on our
streets. And guess what? It worked. In the 10 years the assault weapons
ban was law, gun massacres dropped 37 percent. After the ban lapsed in
2004, gun massacres rose by 183 percent. That is a big difference.
Back then, a different shooting was on the minds of Americans: the
101 California Street shooting in my hometown of San Francisco, where a
disturbed man entered a law firm and killed eight people. For many,
this tragedy was a wake-up call that required action. And we did act.

Now, 30 years later, teenagers are able to purchase AR-15s, multiple
high-capacity magazines, and shoot up a grocery store or elementary
school, and we are left mourning the deaths of innocent people and
asking, what is the solution?
I applaud the sponsors of the legislation now before the Senate, but
I have to ask, what will it take for us to hear

[[Page S3113]]

the wake-up call and pass stronger gun legislation? Our Nation, our
children, are under constant attack. Nowhere is safe. There are mass
shootings at schools, at churches, in synagogues, newspaper offices,
stores, movie theaters, on and on. It is simply too easy to get a
weapon designed to kill as many people as possible. Today's legislation
will help, but there is so much more we could and should be doing.
Our gun laws are lax, and they make it too simple for anyone--even
those we know are prone to violence--to obtain a weapon. This is
especially true of teenagers. Even though they can't buy a beer or a
pack of cigarettes, they can buy an AR-15 assault rifle and thousands
of rounds of ammunition once they turn 18 years old. The results are
heartbreaking. In Uvalde, 19 children and 2 teachers were massacred
last month because an 18-year-old was able to buy an assault weapon.
Just 10 days earlier in Buffalo, 10 people were shot to death in a
grocery store because an 18-year-old was able to buy an assault weapon.
The common denominator in so many mass shootings today is assault
weapons.
I understand the Senators who negotiated the bill couldn't reach
agreement on this issue. Consequently, the bill fails to prevent
teenagers--teenagers--from buying assault weapons.
Under current law, a Federal firearms licensee may not sell or
deliver a handgun to a buyer younger than 21; however, this commonsense
protection does not apply to purchases of assault weapons. This
disparity actually costs lives.
It is simple logic: If you can't buy a beer, you shouldn't be able to
buy an assault weapon. If you can't buy a handgun, you shouldn't be
able to buy an AR-15. That is why I introduced, along with 13 of my
colleagues, the Age 21 Act. I have also filed it as an amendment on the
bill before us.
The bill would raise the minimum age to purchase assault weapons and
high-capacity ammunition from 18 to 21. So before you have a powerful
weapon, before you buy big bullets, you have to at least be 21 years
old. I don't think that is too much to ask.
This commonsense reform has public support among both Democrats and
Republicans. A recent POLITICO poll showed that 88 percent of Democrats
and 68 percent of Republicans support requiring people to be 21 or
older to purchase a firearm.
I believe that failing now to act and address the ease with which
teenagers can buy assault weapons is really a grave mistake. And make
no mistake about it, it will cost lives. So now is the time to act.
I urge my colleagues to support the Age 21 Act and pass it before the
next massacre. I hope these words are heard. I hope people understand.
I hope there is no more killing of young people this way.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge the years of
bipartisan hard work on one of the most challenging subjects we have
here, which is gun violence, mental illness, and all the things that
basically contribute to these horrible, horrible tragedies. Something
has to be done, and something has been done.
There are going to be people who look at the piece of legislation we
are about to pass in a bipartisan way and say that it is not enough. I
can understand that. There are going to be other people saying that it
is too much, that it is the camel's nose under the tent and they want
to take my guns away. I can understand their concern because people
have scared them. It is a constitutional amendment. That is not going
to happen.
So what I want to reaffirm is, myself coming from a little town--
Farmington, WV--being raised in a gun culture, growing up in a gun
culture--my father was not a sportsman. He was not a gun person. But he
wanted to make sure I had access to people who knew how and lived in
this culture and who knew how to teach me properly.
So, growing up, they had what they called the Farmington Sportsman's
Club. These were a lot of the men who worked in the mines who kind of
took us under their wing, all us young kids. They taught us gun safety.
They called it ``gun sense.'' We are going to teach you some gun sense,
Joe. I said OK. And I understood it. Gun sense--it is the sensible
thing you do with a gun. It is the law-abiding thing law-abiding gun
owners do. The first thing they teach you is the safety of how to
handle the gun. It is never loaded. It is always broken down before you
go into the woods, before you prepare to hunt or if you are going to
shoot, whatever you are going to do. They would teach us about that.
They would teach us everything they possibly could, and then they
explained to us why they were teaching us.
They said: First of all, the most important thing to know when you
acquire a weapon--and it is a weapon--it is basically to feed your
family, to defend your family, and basically the sporting of skeet
shooting or target shooting.
I said: I got it. I understand.
They said: Do you understand this?
I said: What?
You never sell your gun to a stranger--never, ever, ever. If you
don't know the person, that is not someone you want to sell to until
you know exactly who they are and what their intent may be.
Fine. So that is part of my gun culture: You never sell your gun to a
stranger.
He said: You never loan your gun--even to a family member who is not
responsible. If you deem them to be not a responsible person and you
have not trusted them by giving them your car or doing anything with
them with any valuables you had, why would you loan them your gun? It
is a dangerous--you know, they don't know how to do it. They won't,
basically, take care of it and honor it and understand the gun culture
that you do.
These are things I learned very young.
I am going to fast-forward to Sandy Hook. Never in my mind, never in
my imagination, never in the United States of America could I believe
that 20 babies would get slaughtered, that we had become so mentally
disturbed that someone could feel that was something they needed to do
or something drove them to it. I couldn't comprehend that. But what was
even harder than that was, once I got to know all the families, knowing
that most of the children were hard to identify or that they had to use
DNA to identify them, that told me everything.
So I was on the floor of the Senate one time in 2013, and people were
talking about, we have got to do something. Every time there is a
horrific tragedy, we are all willing to start talking about, we have
got to do something.
Mr. President, during that time I was here and we were talking, a
person said we have got to ban this and ban that and take this off the
streets and take this. I heard all those things.
I confronted one of our Senators at that time about the types of
guns. They never--they didn't come from a gun culture. We were all
raised a little differently. They never had the opportunity to learn as
I did.
I said: I think what you are doing is taking a position right now
that by me being a law-abiding gun owner--and I own guns--that I am
going to do something criminally with them or abuse them. I am not. You
have got to give me that certain amount of concern that I am a law-
abiding gun owner the same as you buy--whether you buy a car or
whatever you buy that may do danger to yourself or others in public,
you have that right as a law-abiding citizen, and that is a product
that is being sold. I understand all that.
They said: Well, Joe, if you know so much, why don't you write a
bill?

I said: Well, the thing I see, where the loopholes are--I just told
you. As a law-abiding gun owner, you can't infringe on me by saying I
can't give it to my child or my grandson or I can't give it to my
brother or my cousin--my family, immediate family. You have to give me
that ability to make those decisions as a law-abiding gun owner with
common gun sense.
But I said: What you do is--you have a problem at a gun show. You can
go to a gun show anywhere--they are all over the country--and there
will be somebody in that gun show selling

[[Page S3114]]

guns who doesn't do a background check because they are not a licensed
dealer. That is the way the system is set up.
I said: That is not right. That person is either not a law-abiding
gun owner or doesn't understand guns well enough of how we were
trained. So that should be a loophole to be stopped.
Then we talked about, well, how about on the internet now? We have
all these transactions on the internet anymore. So with the
transactions that are happening on the internet, the way the law is set
up today, if I buy from you in Maryland or you buy from me, then I have
got to send my gun to a dealer, a licensed firearm dealer in Maryland,
before, Mr. President, you can go pick it up, and they will do a
background check on you. But if I sell my gun to somebody in my State
of West Virginia--whether you are down in Bluefield, WV, or in
Wheeling, WV--I can do that without going through any gun dealer, a
licensed dealer, to do a background check. That should be stopped.
So basically we did a bill, and I got Senator Pat Toomey from
Pennsylvania. That was the Manchin-Toomey bill we did back in 2013. It
has probably been vetted longer than anyone else--any piece of
legislation as far as on guns.
I would dearly love to have a commonsense background check bill that
did not infringe on law-abiding gun owners' rights and protected the
Second Amendment. We weren't able to get that in. But, you know what, I
understand. I am OK. I would have loved to. But we got some other
things in.
So what I am trying to point out, those of you who didn't think you
got what you wanted, trust me, we need to start somewhere. This is a
start.
The only thing I had--advice to the committee--we worked on a
bipartisan group--was this: Whatever we do, we have got to make sure
that we are able to say what we are doing today would have prevented
this horrible Uvalde tragedy.
Again, we had young, young kids--babies, if you will, innocent--whose
lives were taken away from them and their families.
Something has to be done. It is not open season on children. So if we
do anything, it has to be towards the safety of children and the school
system. If you can't, as a parent or a grandparent, see your child off
to school, knowing full well they are going to return home safe or if
you have that doubt in your mind or if that child has that doubt and
they are scared to go to school, something is wrong with our system in
America.
We are asking just basically for good, decent people to step up. This
is a piece of legislation that will do an awful lot of good, and it is
something we can build off of, and I think that is our purpose.
Support State crisis intervention orders. We are putting $750 million
that will be available for States to create and administer laws that
help keep weapons out of the hands of those determined by a court, with
strong due process--now, they have been talking about what kind of a
flag it is, what kind of a law. Forget about that.
What we are saying is, when we identify them--let me tell you
something. The people who can do more good and help us more are the
students who are going to school and have befriended their group of
friends, and all of a sudden, this student goes dark. Something
happens. They take you off of their social media page. They don't want
to interact with you anymore. They have another group of friends.
Something is wrong. But if you had a mental hygiene professional in
that school system that you could go to as a student and say, ``I have
a friend I am concerned about,'' then it is in the proper hands. We
haven't had that. This gives us that chance. This gives us that chance
to do it.
Protection of victims of domestic violence. We know, far too many
times--and to tell you how rampant this is and the culture that we
have, there are domestic violence shelters almost in every corner of
the country. Wherever you live in America, you can find a domestic
violence shelter. We are that committed to protecting people going
through abuse.
This basically closes the boyfriend loophole, which is something that
has been needed to be done for quite a while. I think that it is going
to save lives. I really do.
Enhanced background checks for people under 21. Myself, I was very
open. I think it should have gone to 21. Makes all the sense in the
world.
I use this rationale: If you are less than 21 years of age and over
the age of 18, you cannot go to a gun store legally and buy a handgun.
It is the law. Not once have we ever had a strong position to where
people are saying: Oh, you have got to have 18-year-olds go buy
handguns--trying to retract that. We haven't. It doesn't make sense.
But for some reason, we never have on the long guns. And I am going to
tell you why. Rite of passage: my first long gun, single shot .22--it
is considered long. It is one single shot, bolt-action .22. My next gun
was a .410 shotgun to go squirrel hunting. Then I jumped over 16-gauge
to a 12-gauge because I wanted to be big time. I wanted to show them I
can shoot a 12-gauge and take the kick. But that is the reason.

So at 18, you know, you are out there--and they told me this: Well,
wait a minute, 18-year-olds can go into the military, and they are
going to be taught all these weapons.
I said: Let me make sure you understand. They are going to be
properly trained, and they are not going to leave base with them. They
are properly trained. And those weapons that you are talking about are
used only for the military and defense of our country and does not
leave base unless they are on duty. That is the difference in what you
want to do.
So we opened it up, and this new product comes onto the market. And
this product comes onto the market with a vengeance. The only thing I
have said--and I have been very public about it--I don't own one, but I
have friends and family members who do, and I trust they will do the
right thing. They enjoy them, for whatever reason. So I haven't gone
down that path.
But the bottom line is we have got to take a position that we are
going to protect our children. And this is what it is about. It is a
child protection bill, as far as I am concerned. And if you can't
protect the children in America, if you can't protect the children in
your neighborhood, in your school system, that go to school, the same
school as your children and grandchildren, then God help us all. And if
that is not at the front of every discussion on a PTO meeting today
going on around the country, in every school board going on around the
country, then something is wrong. How hardened is your school? How well
are our children protected? If I am a parent or grandparent, that is
what I am asking.
I have three young grandchildren in that age exactly in the school
system, very close to where this happened. And you can imagine where my
heart was when I heard about this horrible tragedy. So I can only
imagine. My heart and prayers go out to these family members who will
never bring back their children. I am still very close to the Sandy
Hook parents and the movement that made people more aware. It has taken
a long time, but we are going in the right direction.
I see my good friend Senator Cornyn, who has worked so hard on this.
This is something that is long overdue--long overdue. So what we are
going to do, if you are 18 to 21, we want to make sure that we know
what your juvenile record is. If there is a juvenile record, we are
going to find it, and we are going to see if you are worthy or not to
have this type of gun. And that is going to be a 3- to 10-day process
for us to get the records back through the different systems to make
sure that we have evaluated them properly and to review the juvenile
and mental records, which are so important. I can assure you, a young
person who maybe didn't have the family support they needed or the
nurturing that was needed and they have been in the juvenile system for
violence or behavior problems, it is going to be someone that more than
likely is going to have a problem as they grow older, unless they can
get help. Maybe now we can identify and get that person help so they
don't harm themselves or anyone else in society. That is the purpose of
what we are doing.
And then you have the investment in mental health funding: $11
billion we are investing in mental health. That is serious. For the
first time, for us to put this type of money--of public money--towards
something that is a public

[[Page S3115]]

tragedy that we are dealing with, I think the money is going in the
right place. So when we said we want to be able to prevent--this bill
should be able to prevent someone who shouldn't have a gun in that age
group, and it gives us a little extra eyes and time to look into it, we
have done it. To say that we basically are going to be able to identify
this person and maybe help that person save themselves and a whole lot
of other innocent people, we have done it.
We have started in the right direction. There is a lot more we can
do. So for all of you that are out there saying, You didn't do enough,
it is just not good enough--don't let the perfect be the enemy of the
good. This is a good piece of legislation, and it has bipartisan
support. And I am so proud of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
It is time to move forward. We will be voting very shortly on that
sometime today. It will be a historic vote, a very historic vote. And I
am proud that the colleagues are standing tall on this. We have 50
Democrats and 15 Republicans, and that is a major accomplishment in
today's atmosphere.
So I am proud to be a Senator that is going to take part in a
historic piece of legislation to maybe correct a lot of the fears that
people have right now of sending their children or grandchildren to
school, of maybe relieving the fears of children who are saying, I am
afraid to go to school today. That is something I have never heard
growing up. It is something I couldn't imagine in the United States of
America. I don't want my children or grandchildren and their children
having to live through this. It is time for us to stop it.

This is a right start. It is a right piece of legislation. It is a
good piece of legislation. And this is one time we have put our money
where our mouth is and the mental health illness that goes on around in
this country to make sure we are taking care of a problem that has been
festering for a long time.
With that, I want to thank my colleague, Senator Cornyn, from Texas.
I want to thank all of the group, if you will. We have 20-plus strong,
equally divided--Democrats and Republicans--working for the right cause
and the purpose for us being here, making sure we do something good for
America and protect our children. We have done that in this bill.
With that, I say thank you to all of my friends, all of my
colleagues, for a job well done.
With that, I see my friend is here, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cortez Masto). The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I came to the floor to talk about the
Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. But first, let me just express my
gratitude to the Senator from West Virginia for his longtime commitment
to come up with a bipartisan solution. This is not easy.
And there are a lot of examples of good-faith attempts to try to come
up with an answer that can get the requisite number of votes. And I
know the Senator from West Virginia knows how hard that is. But it
hasn't deterred him from contributing to our efforts, and I think our
product that we are voting on is better for that. I want to say thank
you.
Mr. MANCHIN. If I could say one thing, Senator Cornyn, if you give me
a minute here.
The leadership you have shown is admirable. It really is. You come
from a gun culture. I come from a gun culture. We know the challenges
in a gun culture. I said: To a group of people, it is not enough; to
other people, it is too much. Anything is too much because it is the
camel's nose under the tent they are afraid of. We protected the Second
Amendment. And we attacked the problem we have been identifying, which
is mental illness. And you brought that to the forefront, took it. We
put our money where our mouth is.
I think this is a great piece of legislation for us to start
protecting the children of America. And I thank you again for that.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I thank my friend, our friend, from West
Virginia for those generous remarks.
As we all know, a lot of people have been working on this issue, for
the last few weeks especially, intensely. And this included, obviously,
a lot of people beyond those that I have the time to name here. But we
finally introduced our proposed legislation last Tuesday, exactly 4
weeks after the last terrible shooting in Uvalde, TX. I am not a
patient person by temperament or personality. So I was hoping we would
get here faster. But the truth is, since it requires consensus and
persuasion, sometimes it takes a little longer than you hoped for. And
I appreciate the space that both the majority leader and the Republican
leader have given us to come up with something that will achieve a
result.
So often around here, people do things and say things not with the
intention of actually passing legislation but with the intention of
making a political statement, or messaging, as it is sometimes called.
That is not what we are doing here. We are not looking to posture or to
try to embarrass anybody. We are trying to find a solution to a very
real problem. And I think what we have come up with will, in the end,
pass the test, which I know so many of us believe is the standard. And
that standard is: Will it save lives? Will it save lives? And I believe
the answer to that is yes. And that makes this worth doing.
Well, from the beginning, I was optimistic that we could reach a
bipartisan agreement, but I know that on both sides of the aisle, there
were some places that we could not go. As the Senator from West
Virginia said--a proud defender of the Second Amendment, as am I--I was
not going to go anywhere in this negotiation that jeopardized the
rights of law-abiding Americans under the Second Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.

Some people act as if the Second Amendment is somehow different than
the rest of the Bill of Rights--the freedom of speech, the freedom of
press, the freedom of association, the freedom of religion. Well, it is
right there all in the same 10 first amendments to the U.S.
Constitution, called the Bill of Rights. So it is entitled to no less
respect than those other constitutional rights contained in the Bill of
Rights.
But I think we have come up with a way to make good public policy and
also to maintain that commitment to the Constitution. Some people want
to create a false choice. I don't think we need to go there because
there is not a false choice, as I said, between the Constitution and
the Second Amendment and making good public policy. They don't have to
overlap or interfere with each other. Both can stand on their own
merits. Well, as I said, law-abiding gun owners are not the problem.
And that was a redline for me.
During the course of our negotiations, our Democratic colleagues did
push for a range of provisions that I believe stood no chance of
becoming law, particularly in a 50-50 Senate. We know that if Democrats
want to do everything their way or Republicans want to do everything
our way, almost by definition in a 50-50 Senate, nothing will happen.
And to me, that was one of the most important things we are doing
here. One is demonstrating that our institutions--in this case, the
U.S. Senate--can actually work at a time when a lot of people are
questioning whether our institutions can work and also questioning
whether it is possible to come up with some bipartisan piece of
legislation rather than fail as we have so many times before and each
side sort of returning to their corner of a boxing ring and trying to
message it to their base and not actually get a result.
So there were a lot of things that the President has asked for in
this bill. For example, a ban on so-called assault weapons, which are a
semiautomatic long gun, named, I guess, because of focus groups or
polling assault weapons, but it is really a semiautomatic rifle. And
there was also some discussion about high-capacity magazines. Neither
of those are part of this legislation.
Now, I know there are Members who would perhaps love to have that,
but they understand that to press that point to its logical extreme
would mean we would not have anything at all. There is also no
mandatory waiting period. There is no potentially unconstitutional
requirement that gun owners store their weapons in a particular way.
Unless a person is adjudicated mentally ill or is a violent criminal,
no one's Second Amendment rights will be impacted by this legislation,
period. We know already that the National Instant Criminal Background
Check System--which is the gold standard, in my

[[Page S3116]]

view, to make sure we draw the line in the right place between law-
abiding gun owners and those who cannot, under existing law, purchase a
firearm. For example, if you have been adjudicated in a mental
institution, you can't buy a firearm. If you have been convicted of a
felony, if you have been dishonorably discharged from the military, if
you are addicted to drugs--all of those are current questions in the
National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which if you answer
yes to, then you cannot legally purchase or possess a firearm.
Some wanted to include more categories, but we did not. We
essentially are, by doing what we have done here, saying we are going
to make sure that existing law is enforced but not add additional
requirements.
Well, some of our colleagues like to say that to keep guns out of the
hands of dangerous individuals, we need to limit the rights of law-
abiding citizens. But as we know, the bad guys--the criminals--aren't
going to respect the law; they are going to get the guns by any means
they can, including illegally.
Frequently, they obtain firearms on the street or through straw
purchasers. Background checks don't deter them because they don't buy
them from a Federal firearms licensee, which does a background check.
They buy it from a member of a street gang or someone else.
So we have rejected those attempts to add restrictions, as I say, on
law-abiding gun owners, but we have added stiffer penalties for straw
purchasers and gun traffickers. That, I believe, is the most effective
way to deal with the problem of street sales of illegal guns through
trafficking and straw purchasing. That is a way to improve public
safety.
Following the shooting in Uvalde 4 weeks ago, I said I wanted to look
at reforms that might have prevented this terrible tragedy from
occurring.
To me, that is the best way to approach these cases because it is
hard, sort of in the abstract, to say what it is we could do that might
save lives. Frequently, we can look at the fact pattern of what
happened and say: Here is where there was a failure, and here is
another place there was a failure. Unfortunately, in Uvalde, there were
multiple points of failure.
One is a lack of our access to juvenile records. This young man
showed up after he had his 18th birthday. Right now, the criminal
background check system doesn't look back before you were 18 to see
whether you had a mental health adjudication or some disqualifying
criminal conviction.
That is a problem because if somebody who we know, in retrospect, is
sort of a ticking timebomb as a result of his troubled past, there is
no way under the current system to get access to that information.
So one of the things we have done here is to say: Let's see if we can
work with the States to make sure that they supply to the National
Instant Criminal Background Check System information that had it
occurred as an adult post-18 would clearly disqualify someone from
purchasing a firearm. This is a little bit of a challenge because every
State kind of does things differently, and there is no way we can
compel the State to provide the information, but I would think that
Governors and State legislatures would want to work with us to try to
keep guns out of the hands of people who we know are a threat to
themselves and a threat to public safety.
Our bill incentivizes the States to upload whatever juvenile records
they have to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System to
ensure that any disqualifying criminal convictions or mental health
adjudications are available.
This is, to be clear, not an expansion but a clarification of the
types of conduct and records that would disqualify somebody if you were
an adult that are not currently available because we don't look past
the 18th birthday--behind the 18th birthday to juvenile records.
So what we are doing is simply ensuring that those records, which
would already disqualify somebody had it occurred if they were an
adult, are available and could be considered as part of that background
check.
If the background check for a buyer under 21 returns a potentially
disqualifying record, what we have provided in this enhanced background
check is an opportunity for the FBI to ask more questions.
And under our legislation, we don't change this part of it. The NICS
system--the National Instant Criminal Background Check System--has 3
days to do a background check. But because it is computerized, 90
percent of them are done just in a matter of seconds, but on occasion
the FBI has other information they need to investigate.
This was a real problem, for example, in Charleston, where Dylann
Roof, somebody we know had a misdemeanor drug conviction--and on
further inquiry, the FBI would have found out he was addicted to
narcotics, which is also a disqualification. But because there was no
opportunity to expand the background check beyond just the 3 days under
current law, it wasn't part of the NICS system. And, unfortunately, he
bought a gun and killed a lot of innocent people at Mother Emanuel
Church there in Charleston.

So giving the FBI, for this cohort of 18- to 21-year-olds, an
opportunity, if they come across something that needs further
investigation, to give them up to an additional 7 business days to look
into it.
I will give you another example. Let's say they come up with a record
that demonstrates there was an assault. Well, there are different types
of assaults against someone. It may be a bar fight or punching someone
in the nose or it could be domestic violence. Well, the first is not a
disqualifier under the law, but if the assault conviction actually
turns out to be domestic violence, it would be. And so that is the kind
of information that we are giving the FBI an opportunity to explore in
this extension of the background check.
But this is not a mandatory waiting period, and it doesn't apply to
gun buyers of all ages. For example, if somebody is 19 years old and
they do the background check and they do what we require here, which is
inquire of the juvenile record repository and the repository for mental
health adjudications and local law enforcement, and they find nothing,
then the transaction can occur in a matter of hours or a matter of
days.
There is no mandatory waiting period. And this really addresses only
that cohort of 18-, 19-, and 20-year-olds, which has become a common
profile for young shooters who have shot innocent people everywhere
from Uvalde to Sandy Hook in Connecticut and other places.
The profile, unfortunately, is very sad and very tragic, people who
are a danger to themselves and others, and that is the reason why we
thought this enhanced process was important.
We also included comprehensive due process requirements relating to
firearms. I have talked about the fact that this is a constitutional
right, and of course the Constitution guarantees due process of law.
And a lot of folks are, frankly, concerned about these red flag laws,
these crisis intervention orders when somebody is demonstrated to be a
danger to themselves and others.
And the concern is that not all of these red flag laws contain robust
due process requirements. What are we talking about? Well, due process
generally is understood to include notice, the opportunity to be heard,
the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, and to present evidence in
front of an impartial judicial officer.
So, in order to make sure that none of the grant funds would be
available to States that did not have robust due process requirements
and had red flag laws, as 19 States and the District of Columbia do, we
have very strong due process conditions on the grants that are
available.
But many States don't have red flag laws. For example, Texas does
not, but we sure have a lot of crisis intervention programs that are
sort of focused on the same sort of problem.
We have mental health courts, veterans courts, drug courts. We have
something called assisted outpatient treatment for people who, under
court order, can be an outpatient and be required to show up for their
counseling or treatment but also to take the medications that their
healthcare provider requires them to take if they are going to manage
their mental health challenges. That is done under a court order but as
an outpatient. So it is another way of sort of addressing this

[[Page S3117]]

problem of people having unmanaged mental health challenges and, in
some cases, becoming a danger to themselves and others.
We firmly rejected the idea that the Federal Government would impose
a national red flag law. And we did not view it as appropriate for the
Federal Government to make the grant funds that are available through
the Department of Justice be seen as an incentive to sort of nudge
States or encourage States to pass their own extreme risk protection
orders.
Those are decisions that are made at the State level, not here. But
like I said, we provided robust due process requirements of any grants
that go to those States. And it may be, as one of my colleagues said
this morning, in his State, they have red flag laws, and he thinks that
money could be used to ensure that the rights of law-abiding gun owners
are protected by a robust due process.

And for States that don't have red flag laws, as I mentioned, there
are other ways this money can go to help and address a similar problem.
So all States will have access to these funds through the Department of
Justice Byrne JAG law enforcement grant program.
So while some have said that taxpayer dollars are being used to
violate someone's Second Amendment rights without due process, that is,
clearly, a false accusation. Unfortunately, we know that when there is
so much money to be made and so many people to be recruited to one
cause or another when it deals with this general subject matter, that a
lot of reckless and irresponsible and false statements get made, which
is the reason I am here explaining what is in the bill and what is not
in the bill.
One of the things that was very important to our Democratic
colleagues is the definition of the ``boyfriend loophole.'' Just by way
of explanation, under current law, before we passed this bill, if you
are married to someone, if you are cohabitating with someone, if you
have a child with someone and are not married or cohabitating or if you
are in a relationship which is, for all practical purposes, similar to
a marriage but not official, if you commit a domestic violence offense
in your State and are convicted of that misdemeanor domestic violence,
you are forever barred from purchasing or possessing a firearm.
One of the things we negotiated, frankly, because I think it just
makes a lot of sense, is that for this category of boyfriends, so-
called, roughly defined as recent or current serious relationship of a
romantic or intimate nature, if you find yourself in one of those
relationships and you commit an act of domestic violence, one of the
things we negotiated is 5 years later, with a clean record, then you
can have your Second Amendment rights restored.
And I think that is an important protection, again, of Second
Amendment rights. Well, we would not agree that someone who was
convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence against a girlfriend 30
years ago would be forever barred from their Second Amendment rights or
someone who just had a casual dating relationship.
But as I said, we did include a provision to restore the Second
Amendment rights to certain individuals who have a clean record of not
committing any additional criminal acts, including domestic violence,
for a period of 5 years.
We all know that there are plenty of people who make mistakes but
then turn their lives around, and this legislation opens up the anatomy
for individuals to have their Second Amendment rights restored if they
do that.
We have worked throughout this process with a lot of different
people, from the school safety portion to the mental health portion,
and we have worked with law enforcement, and we have worked with a
variety of groups, including some of the groups that represent gun
owners as well as those who have advocated reform of our gun laws. I
thought it was important for us to hear from everybody.
And now it may be that in the end, some of these outside groups do
not love 100 percent of what we are doing here. We know that no piece
of legislation is perfect. By definition, it is a compromise and a
consensus to try to find that common ground. And so some outside groups
may say: Well, we can't support that because it doesn't give us 100
percent of what we want, but frankly there is never a bill that passes
that gives one side or the other 100 percent of what they want.
So just to conclude, just to repeat myself for emphasis, this bill
does not infringe on law-abiding citizens rights under the Second
Amendment. It doesn't actually expand the background checks system. It
doesn't impose mandatory waiting periods or any other restrictions.
There is a lot of misinformation and, believe me, I think that is
what social media was created for, for spreading misinformation or
disinformation.
So there is a lot of misunderstanding about what is in this
legislation, which is the reason I wanted to come to the floor and set
the record straight.
This bill does, however, include important targeted reforms, complete
with robust due process protections, that I believe in the end will
keep our children and our communities safe while respecting Second
Amendment rights.
Over the last couple of days, we have had a chance to have even
further and more robust discussions among not only Republicans, but
Democrats, and I appreciate those who perhaps may have been skeptical
to what we were trying to do here--their willingness to keep an open
mind, to ask us hard questions, and to force us to come up with good
answers that will address their concerns. That is how we pass
legislation here in the Senate; and my hope is that through those good-
faith negotiations and debates and discussions, we can continue to
build additional support for this legislation.
I yield the floor.
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. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REED. Madam President, we are on the brink of passing meaningful
gun safety legislation, and it is regrettable that it took the deaths
of 31 people, including 19 children, in the recent Buffalo and Uvalde
mass shootings to provide the needed momentum to break the hold that
the National Rifle Association and the gun lobby has had over Congress.
I commend my colleagues on both sides who have stepped forward to
reach a compromise. This bill is a big accomplishment that can save
lives, but I feel an inescapable dread that we will face the horror of
another mass shooting if we do not take further steps.
As a veteran, I have shot many of the weapons we have heard debated
on the floor this week. I know their power, and I know they were
designed for killing people.
Now, I know that some of my colleagues hold the view that more
firearms in the hands of more people is the antidote to gun violence,
but I have to ask: Will more and more guns and more and more people
carrying guns in public make our schools, our churches, or our streets
safer? Is that really a vision for this country? I don't think so.
According to an academic study by the Council on Foreign Relations,
the United States, with less than 5 percent of the world's population,
has 46 percent of the world's civilian-owned guns, and it has the
highest homicide-by-firearm rate of the world's most developed
countries.
Indeed, Americans kill each other with guns at a rate 25 times higher
than other high-income countries. In addition, Americans use firearms
to harm themselves in alarming numbers. According to the CDC, in 2020,
there were more than 45,000 firearm-related deaths in the United
States, and roughly half of those deaths were suicides.
That is the academic data. But what grips me and so many other Rhode
Islanders are the mass killings of Americans, particularly children,
over the last quarter century: Columbine, Sandy Hook, Parkland, and now
Uvalde. Hospitals, concert venues, houses of worship, and military
installations have also been targeted. People have been targeted based
on race, sexual orientation, and religious beliefs. Innocent lives have
been taken again and again, and many more lives have been shattered.
The common element

[[Page S3118]]

is a firearm; and while correlation isn't necessarily causation, these
mass killings have become more and more common as more and more guns
have been marketed and sold.
Roughly two-thirds of Americans do not own a gun, and the majority of
Americans agree on a commonsense solution like expanding background
checks. But groups like the NRA have lined up to block these efforts
even in the face of devastating loss.
The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act before us today represents
progress. It represents a momentary break in the NRA's stranglehold on
reform. This bill will establish a 10-day waiting period for firearms
purchases for individuals under 21 years of age. It will close the
``boyfriend'' loophole that allows abusers to access guns. It will
strengthen requirements for gun sellers to obtain a Federal firearms
license. It will establish clear penalties for straw purchases and gun
trafficking, and it will invest in violence intervention programs and
mental health solutions in communities across the country. Those are
real changes that are worthy of support on their own.
I am also encouraged that the bill includes incentives for States to
adopt extreme risk protection orders, or a red flag system, similar to
the legislation I have introduced. State red flag laws have proven
effective in keeping guns away from individuals who have demonstrated
clear warning signs of danger to themselves and others, and we should
be encouraging every State to adopt a red flag system.
I would also like to talk about the mental health aspects of the
bill. First, it needs to be repeated that a person with a mental health
condition is more likely to be a victim of violent crime, not the
perpetrator. The most reliable predictor of future violence is actually
a history of violent behavior, not a diagnosis of mental illness.
That being said, we do have a mental health crisis in this country
that demands attention. In Rhode Island, families and providers have
been asking for more resources for treatment and more training for
mental health workers, particularly resources dedicated to children
with mental health needs. I am pleased that the negotiations over the
gun control package so far include new resources for mental health
care, including a national expansion of the certified community
behavioral health clinic model, which would provide sustainable funding
to expand mental health and substance abuse treatment and services at
the community level. I have worked with my colleagues Senator Stabenow
and Senator Blunt for over a decade to move this provision forward.
I am also pleased that this agreement invests new funding in a
National Suicide Prevention Lifeline. Next month, the Lifeline will be
making the switch to an easy to remember three-digit number: 988. We
need to make sure that call centers have the staff and capacity to
handle call volume and make sure people who reach out for help get
appropriate follow-up care. As I mentioned earlier, half of all gun
deaths each year are suicides, and firearms are the most lethal method
of suicide. In addition to keeping guns out of the hands of people in
crisis, we need to make sure we have well-funded and organized systems
in place for people who reach out for help in these times of crisis,
like the Lifeline. Again, I would hope every American, and particularly
those who face these mental health challenges, remember 988. It could
be a lifesaver.

I hope we are able to consider bipartisan efforts to strengthen our
mental health care system over the coming weeks and months. For
example, we should pass the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline
Improvement Act, which I introduced with Senator Moran last year. The
HELP Committee reported the bill out of the committee unanimously
nearly a year ago, but this bipartisan bill still has not yet come
before the Senate.
The bill also includes critical resources for schools, not only to
implement measures to address physical safety, but also to ensure that
schools have the resources to address the social, emotional, and mental
health needs of students and staff. Our educators have not just been on
the frontlines of the pandemic. Too often--much too often--they are on
the frontlines of the gun violence epidemic. And they are also on the
frontlines of our mental health crisis. Finally, because of this
legislation, some help is on the way.
The gun violence bill we are debating will hopefully prevent some
tragedies going forward. Though we cannot help but celebrate any
progress on gun violence, we should not lose sight of the fact that we
need more comprehensive action than this bill if we are really
committed to preventing gun violence in our Nation.
There is no single law or regulation that we can pass that would have
stopped every single one of these tragedies we have seen over the past
few decades. But in my view, Congress should do more, including
reinstating the assault weapons ban, cracking down on illicit ghost
guns, and, most importantly, eliminating the near total immunity of the
gun industry, which has an unparalleled level of liability protection.
The gunman in Buffalo bought a semiautomatic weapon, but he was able
to ``illegally'' transform it into a fully automatic weapon. If you go
to your cell phone and get YouTube, put in something like ``transform
AR-15 to fully automatic,'' you will have a host of videos. One of them
lasts 1 minute and 38 seconds. Why is this happening? Well, when you
have no liability for the consequences of building a weapon that can be
easily transformed from semi to fully automatic and you can wink-wink
to your potential market and say, ``Yes, this is semiautomatic,'' we
need legislation to get that immunity removed.
Now, I am proud that in the days following the tragedy, my home State
of Rhode Island took the decisive action of banning magazines that hold
more than 10 rounds, raising the minimum age for buying shotguns and
rifles from 18 to 21, and prohibiting loaded rifles and shotguns from
being carried in public. Congress should do the same by passing the
bill before us and then pressing on with additional reforms.
I will vote for this bipartisan bill. It is a significant step, but
it cannot be the last step.

50th Anniversary of the Pell Grant Program

Madam President, I rise to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the
enactment of the Pell grant, which was named in honor of its author and
my predecessor, Senator Claiborne Pell--I might add, a mentor, a
friend, and a remarkable example to me.
Senator Pell believed in the power of education to transform
individuals, communities, and our Nation. He worked to put the power of
education in the hands of the people.
When Senator Pell introduced the legislation to create what would
become the Pell grant, he said:

There is no greater investment this country can make than
in the education of its youth. Our young people, who are
simultaneously our responsibility, our legacy, and our key to
problem-solving in the future, must be enabled to pass easily
into the realm of postsecondary education, and our
institutions of higher education must be equipped to
accommodate and train them.

His words were prophetic and profound. The Pell grant became the
cornerstone for broadening access to postsecondary education. Because
of the Pell grant, over 80 million students and counting have been able
to attend college. In 1972, before the Pell grant, less than half of
high school graduates immediately enrolled in college. Today, two-
thirds make that transition. Since the establishment of the Pell grant,
the percentage of people ages 25 to 30 with a bachelor's degree has
doubled.
Today, the Pell grant supports nearly 7 million students across the
Nation, including nearly 24,000 in Rhode Island. It remains one of the
most effective Federal programs in assisting low-income families, with
most recipients coming from families with annual incomes of $40,000 or
less. It is one of our greatest tools to promote equity and opportunity
in the United States. Yet, despite this success, today we find
ourselves at a crossroads when it comes to fulfilling the promise of
the Pell grant.
We have seen declining enrollment over the past 5 years. Even more
alarming is that the institutions that enroll the lion's share of low-
income and first generation college students--our community colleges
and public 4-year colleges--have seen some of the most significant
declines.

[[Page S3119]]

We have seen an explosion of student loan debt, now standing at more
than $1.7 trillion--debt that threatens to foreclose on educational
opportunity for this generation of Americans. We need to correct
course.
We have made a start with the bipartisan, $400 increase to the
maximum Pell grant in the fiscal year 2022 appropriations act, but we
need to do much more. The Pell grant used to cover over three-quarters
of the cost of a public 4-year college. Today, it covers less than a
third.
When I was growing up and later with the passage of the Pell grant,
it was relatively--I wouldn't say easy--but less challenging to go
ahead and work your way through college with a summer job and a Pell
grant, graduating with very little debt and moving on in the community
and this society and this economy. Today, it is much, much more
difficult. So it is time to double the grant.
We also need States and institutions to step up. Affordability is a
shared responsibility. Fifty years ago, Senator Pell led the effort to
ensure costs did not keep talented and committed students from pursuing
a college education. In his farewell speech in the Senate, he called on
us to continue his commitment to educational opportunity. He said:

In education, I want us to be known as the nation that
continually expanded educational opportunities, [the nation]
that brought every child into the education mainstream, and
[the nation] that brought the dream of a college education
within the reach of every student who has the drive, talent,
and desire. We should always remember that public support for
education is the best possible investment we can make in our
Nation's future. It should be accorded the highest priority.

So, as we commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Pell grant, it is
time to renew our commitment to college access and affordability. Let's
work together to double the Pell grant, rein in college costs, and
reduce the burden of student loan debt. Let's do our part to realize
Senator Pell's vision for a country that continually expands
opportunity.
One final point: Getting to know Senator Pell, it always impressed me
that, I think, one of the formative periods in his life was the
beginning of World War II. Senator Pell came from an old family.
Pelham, NY, was named after his family. I was once with him when he
informed me that his family once owned Fort Ticonderoga, but then they
donated it to the State of New York.
He could have very easily, in 1941, gotten a promotion, gotten a
rank, and served comfortably in some office. He chose not to.
He enlisted in the Coast Guard as a cook and sailed across the
Atlantic in multiple convoys in dangerous waters. I think there, he
learned the potential of the American people--those other cooks who
would never be able to go to college because they didn't have the
money, but they had talent and, in some cases, more talent perhaps than
the Senator himself. I think that image, that impression, drove him in
many respects to make the Pell grant a reality.
Now, of course, it is quite a tribute to a gentleman who could have
avoided the difficulties and dangers of war and chose, just like other
Americans, to go into the fight. And we have to have that same spirit
as we address the Pell grant.
I yield the floor.
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. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Tribute to Jeff Streit

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, it is Thursday, and normally, when I
am giving this speech, our ``Alaskan of the Week'' speech--you notice
we have a new, pro-energy ``Alaskan of the Week'' diagram here--
normally, when I give this speech, everybody has gone home. The pages
love it because it is the most interesting speech of the week. Some of
our reporters who like this speech, they are kind of viewing this as
the end of the week.
Unfortunately, we are not at the end of the week. There is a lot more
business to do for the next day or two or three--who knows?--important
business, no doubt about it. But I still want to come down to the floor
and talk about a really impressive man who has done incredible stuff
for our State. His name is Jeff Streit.
Jeff has been a builder of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline--what we call
TAPS--and then has helped run it for 48 years, almost half a century.
We are going to talk about Jeff here in a minute. He has done an
incredible job.
I always like to talk a little bit about what is going on in Alaska.
All the people who watch this speech--we know there are millions who
tune in every Thursday--come on up to Alaska. Come visit.
What is happening right now is really, really exciting. It is just a
few days past summer solstice. Boy, did we celebrate in Alaska:
parties, baseball games. The famous Midnight Sun Baseball Game took
place in Fairbanks. I talked about that last week. It took place in
Fairbanks on Tuesday. The Goldpanners, whom I talked about, the famous
Alaskan baseball team, pulled out a 10-to-9 victory in the bottom of
the 10th. The crowd of thousands went wild--Midnight Sun baseball.
So if you are visiting Fairbanks, as many tourists do right now, you
might want to check out a baseball game. We have great baseball in
Alaska, as I described last week.
You also might want to travel a couple of miles outside of Fairbanks
to get a firsthand view of one of the engineering marvels of the world,
the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, what we call TAPS. That is it right there, a
big, beautiful, incredible engineering feat: 800 miles of steel
pipeline crossing 3 mountain ranges--one about 5,000 feet high--
crossing more than 600 streams and rivers, and has transported over 17
billion barrels of oil to a thirsty America. That is energy security
right there.
TAPS has provided countless benefits in terms of tens of thousands of
jobs--good union jobs, I might add--not just to Alaskans but to
Americans all over the country. I think even one of our Senate
colleagues worked on this. It was the largest privately funded
infrastructure project ever undertaken in America at the time it was
built in the early seventies.
Here is the thing: It took 3 years to build--3 years; that is it--
this mammoth, huge, important energy project.
By the way, we need to get back to that in this country. I and many
other Senators are working on that. You can't do an EIS in 6 years. We
have to get back to this can-do American spirit, building things that
benefit our great Nation in a timely manner. I am going to talk a
little bit about that.
Our Alaskan of the Week, Jeff Streit, was one who did this. He helped
construct this incredible engineering feat, and then he stayed on, and
he worked for a company in Alaska, a very famous company called
Alyeska, which is a consortium of companies that own and run and built
the pipeline.
This week, Alyeska celebrated its 45-year anniversary--45 years of
supplying a thirsty America with billions and billions and billions of
barrels of oil. Everybody should applaud that.
I know we have some, unfortunately, who think that if you work in the
energy sector, somehow you are a bad guy. Actually, you are a hero.
America needs energy. Alaska has a lot of it. Alyeska has produced it
and sent it 800 miles down this incredible pipeline to the whole
country. So I want to first congratulate Alyeska for their incredible
work.
Jeff, our Alaskan of the Week, is the longest serving employee there.
He has been working for Alyeska all of those 45 years and, as I
mentioned, started work on TAPS even longer, 48 years in total, because
he is one of the Americans--by the way, there were over 30,000 who came
up to build this incredible work of energy infrastructure. Forty-eight
years, Jeff Streit, Alyeska, building TAPS--what an amazing career. He
is our Alaskan of the Week.
So let me tell you a little bit about Jeff. Jeff's father came to
Alaska after World War II, where he flew for the Army Air Corps.
That is another theme you may have seen on our Alaskan of the Week: a
lot of vets, a lot of veteran families. Alaska has more veterans than
any State per capita in the country.
Jeff's father worked on projects across the State, married Jeff's
mother in 1952 when they were both working on

[[Page S3120]]

the Alaska-Canada Highway--the ALCAN Highway, as we call it in Alaska.
By the way, you want to talk about building something efficiently in
terms of infrastructure that we need in America? The ALCAN Highway--
1,600 miles through Canada, all the way to the lower 48--built in 8
months. We can do that, America. We can build great things--ALCAN
Highway, TAPS--efficiently. We have just got to get back to it. More on
that later.
Jeff's parents then moved back to Illinois, where Jeff was born, but
he might have been raised in Alaska because his parents talked about
the great State of Alaska so much--their adventures there, what they
did there. So he wanted to go back.
He went to pre-vet school at Iowa State for 2 years, and the first
chance he got, in 1973, he moved to Alaska to work on a farm and go to
college at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.
Now, Madam President, I am sure a lot of our Senate colleagues know
this, but for the interns--the pages, I mean--you might remember in the
early seventies, studying history, that we had this big energy crisis
where energy prices were going up--a little bit familiar,
unfortunately, today--going way up, primarily because there was an Arab
oil embargo led by the Gulf Arab States, Saudi Arabia, against the
United States and other countries. It was devastating. You couldn't get
gas. There were lines at gas stations that stretched for blocks. States
issued rationing based on odd and even license plates. Prices surged, a
little bit like today. Motorists turned on each other. It was bedlam.
By the way, it really hurt the economy, like today, in terms of
inflation.
Enter the great State of Alaska and our vast, vast energy reserves
for America. Congress said: We need to get Alaska moving. We need to
get that Alaskan energy to the rest of the country.
So this body and the House debated the Trans-Alaska Pipeline
Authorization Act--what we call, as I mentioned, TAPS--to build this
for the country, and we did it.
It was drama, Madam President. You are sitting right there in the
President of the Senate's seat. The TAPS act in the U.S. Senate was
deadlocked. It was a tie vote here in the Senate, and the Vice
President of the United States had to come and break the tie so America
could build this for a country that needed energy--American energy, by
the way, not energy from the Middle East.
Another incredible story as it relates to legislation and TAPS was
the late, great Congressman Don Young, a freshman at the time. We just
lost our dear Congressman a couple of months ago. He was a brandnew
freshman in 1973. He got an amendment--and, boy, do we need amendments
like this today--that said: On this big infrastructure project, we are
going to stop any litigation. We are going to stop more studies. We are
just going to build it.
We can do that here, by the way, the Congress. We can say: No more
litigation; let's build. And that is what we did. That is what America
did.
As the debate was happening here in the Congress, Jeff moved back up
to Alaska, visited a local union hall, got on with the Teamsters, and
his life's work in Alaska began.
As I said, Madam President, this was the largest private construction
project in our country's history. At its height, we had over 30,000
Americans--great Americans, by the way--building this incredible piece
of American energy infrastructure that transformed our State in Alaska,
and it transformed America. At one point, this pipeline was producing
2.2 million barrels a day for our Nation. Over 17 billion barrels of
oil have flown down that pipeline for America.
By the way, Madam President, Alaska has billions and billions of
barrels of oil left, if our Federal Government would just help us
produce it.
Eventually, Jeff got a job, after building TAPS, with Alyeska running
TAPS, working at Pump Station 8. In the 48 years since, he has worked
nearly every inch of that line as a technician at three pump stations,
as a task force supervisor, as a project supervisor, as a pump station
operations supervisor, and as a pipeline technician trainer. You get
where I am going here, Madam President: He has done it all for Alyeska.
He has great stories and great memories. He remembers the mess halls
filled with smoke and laughter and the hard work it took to build this
pipeline. He remembers watching ``Jaws'' at a packed theater camp in
the middle of the Alaska wilderness. He remembers the time a Russian
delegation came to visit TAPS. The TAPS pump station was so clean.

By the way, Alaska has the highest environmental standards of energy
production anywhere in the world.
He said: The Russians came, saw how we produced, saw pump stations,
and thought that we were lying about how we produce and transport oil
because it was so clean. They thought it was staged.
Jeff said: We were setting standards on the environment--cleanliness,
environmental standards--that people across the world didn't think were
possible. ``It made us proud.''
Well, guess what, we are still doing that in Alaska. Jeff still
marvels at the engineers who designed one of the most complicated
engineering projects ever built--before computers; using paper,
pencils, slide rules. ``Every square inch of the system has to be
intact to move even one drop of oil,'' Jeff said. ``If there is a leak
anywhere, we shut the whole thing down.''
It is a testament to so many that this incredible system has kept oil
flowing for America for 45 years. That is what Jeff just said about
TAPS and Alyeska.
To keep it running, there are always upgrades, adjustments,
installing enhanced monitoring, detection, surveillance, but, as Jeff
said, ``The pipeline itself is still the same pipeline that was built
in the `70s, still doing battle with the geological and meteorological
forces,'' and still standing strong for our country.
Jeff has no plans to retire soon. He is still highly engaged. He is
still highly curious. He is now taking on a greater mentorship role,
including developing and teaching a hydraulics class, emulating those
who taught him.
Jeff said: ``When I think about the last 48 years, I think about the
thousands of people who have made a difference, who helped me and
taught me. And I really think that that's what America is all about--
passing on values and work ethic[s]'' to each other.
That is what America is all about. That is the best of our country:
people who work hard, who are loyal to their jobs, to their
communities, to their State, to their country, and importantly, who
produce important things like American energy, which we need to this
day. Jeff is exactly one of those kind of people. He built this, ran
it, still runs it, and our Nation still needs it.
So, Jeff, thank you for all that you have done.
Thanks to the workers at Alyeska who are currently working right now,
24/7, to keep hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil a day, which we
need, coming down the Trans-Alaska Pipeline.
A big congratulations to Alyeska for 45 years and 17 billion barrels
of oil for America.
That company, Alyeska, has produced many great leaders--Jeff being
one and Tom Barrett, my good friend, being another. And I just want to
say to him--to everybody at Alyeska but particularly to Jeff--
congratulations on being our Alaskan of the Week. You people who are
producing American energy are American heroes. We need more of you, and
we really appreciate all you have done for our great State and our
great Nation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, before I get to my topic today, I would
like to say that when Senator Sullivan first came to the Senate, I
hadn't been here very long, either, and this was my presiding time
every week. I loved the Alaskan of the Week. I don't think they are
ever going to run out of Alaskans of the Week as long as Senator
Sullivan is here. So I was right back in that chair, where you are,
thinking of the many times I heard Senator Sullivan do the presentation
on the Alaskan of the Week and how much I enjoyed it.

S. 2938

Madam President, I would say the topic today is tragic in so many
ways but, I think, moving forward in others.

[[Page S3121]]

Last month, 19 kids were killed in their own school rooms and 2
teachers were killed in Uvalde, TX. It was a horrific act, an agonizing
thing for family, an agonizing thing for community, and I think, along
with the Buffalo, NY, event, an agonizing thing for our country.
One thing that almost all these mass shootings have in common is a
perpetrator who had a mental health issue that wasn't dealt with
properly.
Let me say before Senator Stabenow and I talk any more about mental
health--and I believe I will repeat this again--be sure we know what we
are talking about here. People with mental health conditions are not
dangerous. Mental health is a health issue, and we ought to treat it as
a health issue, but in rare and tragic occasions, people with a mental
health issue not dealt with can become dangerous, and that is what we
have seen in this and other similar circumstances.
So one of the responses is always, Well, we need to have a better
mental health delivery system. That is true, but we should realize
that, according to the National Institutes of Health, for at least a
decade now, they have estimated that at least one in five Americans has
a diagnosable and almost always treatable mental health or behavioral
health issue. Frankly, the pandemic made that even greater.
A June 2020 survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
found that 41 percent of adults in the United States said they had had
at least one symptom of a mental health condition in a recent time, and
11 percent said they had seriously considered suicide in the previous
month. Now, those are extraordinary numbers, but even if half of those
numbers were correct, you see the size of the problem we have and the
importance of dealing with that problem.
Of course, we had even more alarming numbers with children and young
adults during that. The lockdowns, months of virtual learning, time
away from their friends, I would argue too much time on screens--the
effect of the pandemic on close family members had a staggering toll on
the country.
Children's hospitals saw mental health emergencies among 5- to 17-
year-olds increase by 14 percent in the first half of 2021 compared to
2019 and a 45-percent increase in self-injury and suicide for children
in that age group. Pediatric hospital needs and pediatric mental health
care needs are greater than they have ever been.
We need to be sure that everyone who has a mental health crisis or
has an ongoing mental health problem has the help they need when they
need it. The bipartisan legislation we are debating today expands
access to high-quality mental health and behavioral health through what
Senator Stabenow and I will point out we believe to be a truly proven
model of community-based care: the Excellence in Mental Health Program,
a program that we brought to the floor in 2013 and then got passed and
signed into law in 2014.
At the time, Senator Stabenow mentioned that bill marked the most
significant expansion of community mental health and addiction services
in decades.
When we pass this bill, it will be even more dramatic in its long-
term impact. And we have worked on these issues together with pilot
States. We worked on these issues together that brought projects in
individual States that weren't part of that eight-State original and,
eventually, nine-State pilot.
And so today we are able to come with 5 years of history in this
program, a reimbursement model that matters, and results that we think
make a big difference. And I am glad to be here with my good friend
from Michigan. And we are going to kind of do this together for the
next few minutes, talk about what can happen because of a critical
piece of this community safety bill that is in so many ways a mental
health and mental health delivery bill that we are going to see
expanded in the country in unique ways.
Senator Stabenow, I would like to turn to her for a few minutes to
talk about this, and then I have got some things to say, too.
Ms. STABENOW. All right. Thank you, Senator Blunt.
Mr. President, I have to say this has been a wonderful partnership
and a wonderful journey now for, gosh, almost 10 years, I think, since
we originally started talking about the idea that we should be funding
healthcare above the neck the same as healthcare below the neck as part
of the healthcare system. And that is your ``stop and start'' grants,
when we have community health centers that are so wonderful for
physical health. And so we have done that.
I do want to, before going into the substance, give a shout-out,
though--because we are not the only ones who have been working for
almost 10 years--to our wonderful staff: Alex Graf, on my staff, who
has been working on this legislation for 8 of those years, and Caitlin
Wilson, on your staff, who was amazing, and I understand recently
stolen by Senator Cornyn. And so she has continued her work. But so
many people have worked with us that we are very grateful to, including
the main authors and the folks who have put this bill together, like
Senator Cornyn, who has been such a strong supporter of what has become
an evidence-based quality initiative. We don't have to make something
up. When folks say, ``What do you want to do about mental health care
or addiction care,'' we actually have a proven model now. And also to
Kyrsten Sinema and to Chris Murphy and Senator Tillis--so many people
have been supportive of this as well.
And I just want to take us back for just a moment because when we
came to the floor, Senator Blunt, when he mentioned 2013, we actually
came to the floor to mark the 50th anniversary of President Kennedy
signing the Community Mental Health Act. As we know, that was the last
bill he ever signed before his being shot. And part of that was to stop
housing people in hospitals, just locking people in the hospitals, and
create more quality care in the community--you know, shut the hospitals
and open up services in the community.
As you have said so many times, half of that happened. The hospitals
were closed, but we didn't provide the quality and the funding--
permanent funding--for the community care. That was 1963. We are doing
it now in this bill. That is what we are doing in this bill is
completing what was promised in a national bill signed in 1963.
We know, again, that one out of five people in our country--and this
is before COVID--will have a mental illness in their lifetime. So many
leading causes of death--again, prior to COVID--for people under age 50
is a drug overdose, most likely opioid overdose. We know that the most
likely gun death is a suicide, which, by the way, in this bill, there
is an important piece on red flags that I think is so important because
that means that if a family member, if those around someone feel that
they are a danger to themselves and someone else and should not have
access to a gun, they can go through a legal process to have that
happen so that that person is not using a gun to commit suicide or a
suicide-homicide through a mass shooting.
But what is so significant about this is that we know that across
this country, certainly across Michigan, I know in Missouri, we have so
many people--I mean, there are millions of people today who want to be
able to get help for mental health or addiction as part of the
healthcare system. And we want them to do that. We don't want there to
be a stigma.

There used to be a stigma. People would whisper, ``He's got cancer,''
and now, we openly talk about that. We have wonderful programs and
people get treatment, and there is no stigma related to that. It is
very challenging, but there is no stigma. We want that for mental
illness, for behavioral health.
So this isn't about saying every person with a mental illness is
dangerous at all--at all. This is about saying we want everyone to get
the help they need. And in that situation, that rare situation where
somebody doesn't get help and then takes those next steps and is
unstable and dangerous, we certainly want to address protecting them,
their family, the school, the neighborhood, the community. And that is
what the gun safety provisions of this are all about.
Let me just say one other thing and turn it back to Senator Blunt. We
now have--between the number of demonstration States we have had now
for a number of years, we also have 435

[[Page S3122]]

clinics, many of them funded through what we developed as startup
grants so that they can get started, develop the quality standards, be
able to show what a difference it made.
But I think we were both pretty blown away when we saw the difference
it made, when we saw those original numbers from Health and Human
Services, the studies that were done--both in Democratic and Republican
administrations, reinforcing that. The fact that right now, if you have
a 24-hour psychiatric crisis services center, which is part of this,
these clinics, people aren't going to jail--60 percent fewer people are
going to jail because they are getting the help they need, which is why
law enforcement so strongly supports this.
What has been happening is people go to the emergency room instead
because there is no place--our jails, our emergency rooms have become
de facto mental health treatment centers because there was no place
else; 41-percent reduction in homelessness with comprehensive care in
the community. And that is what is in this bill.
And it really is transformative; wouldn't you say, Senator Blunt?
Mr. BLUNT. Yes. I think the point you are making here, too, are that
these are--we now have 5 years of evidence in several States, multiple
years in other States. So this isn't just assuming what will happen but
looking at what we have carefully tried to keep track of, of what does
happen. And as you pointed out, that de facto mental health system,
mental health delivery system of the emergency rooms and police--nobody
was well-served by that. Certainly, the police weren't well-served. The
emergency rooms weren't well-served. And people had many mental health
challenges that weren't served by that as well. And seeing those
numbers go down dramatically of people having to go to the emergency
room for mental health services or being kept in jail overnight or
longer than overnight for mental health services, nobody benefits from
that system.
And so we are seeing real numbers where the people who work at the
emergency room, the people who are in the police department are among
the biggest supporters of this system when it gets in place. Also, the
whole idea of crisis intervention, there are opportunities in this law
for that to happen.
In any of the new structures, whether that is drug court or veterans
court or other places you would go to try to be sure somebody is
getting the help they need when they need it, there also would be due
process involved in anything added; that we use this bill to add to the
system due process where people have a right.
If there is an emergency moment, obviously, you have to deal with
that as an emergency moment. But people then have a right to have their
day in court as well, if they are not part of that crisis intervention
moment of seeing that happen. And so that is important.

But in Missouri, 150,000 people are now part of this excellence in
mental health effort. That is about a 40-percent increase on what some
of the same facilities were doing before, but now, they do it with more
certainty that they are going to get their cost reimbursed. They do it
with the right kind of staff, and 365 days a year, 24 hours a day, 7
days a week, they have to be available. And the new States that enter
the program will go through that same type of competition to be among
the 10 States every 2 years that could enter the program and get us to
all 50 States in that program and have the kind of staff they need, the
kind of accessibility they need.
I think, originally in our bill, which was 8 years ago now--2014--24
States applied to be one of the first 8 States in the pilot program; 19
of them went through the whole process, and 8 States were selected. But
in the other States, there are now 30 States that have big units that
were able to qualify as individual demonstration grant units to show
what they could do. And we really, I think, both believe that those
units in those States will become both the models and the incentive to
bring the whole State into that program now that that is possible and
seeing what we are seeing with results and also results on the
nonmental health side.
One of the unique things I think that this pilot did was--part of the
pilot was to see what happens with the other healthcare issues that
people have who have mental health concerns. And what has happened is
that they have seen those costs go dramatically down. If you have a
behavioral health problem that is being dealt with, you are much more
likely to show up to your doctor's appointment. You are much more
likely to show up to dialysis. You are much more likely to take the
medicine that has been prescribed, whether it was for your mental
health situation--and occasionally, that is the best way to deal with
mental health--or your other health situations. And so those costs go
down.
And even in the immediate healthcare space, we are seeing that States
believe they are saving money in the immediate space of healthcare.
There has never been any question that in the long run you would save
money if you treat mental health like you treat all other health. There
has never been any question, whether it is the prison system or law
enforcement or your personal income capacity, that all those were good
things to do.
I think what we have shown in these early States is that even in the
immediate healthcare space, you save as much money or virtually as much
money or even more money on the other health costs for the one in five
adult Americans--and now big numbers among the younger Americans who
have a mental health problem--you save as much space for their other
health problems, and one in five adult Americans are going to have a
lot of other health problems. It is a pretty big segment of our
society.
And I think, Senator Stabenow, seeing what happened there has also
been persuasive to States as they are beginning to think about making
this part of their permanent program when these pilot projects are
over.
Ms. STABENOW. Absolutely. Senator Blunt, as we know, in the end, this
is all about people. And I think what has been most exciting for me,
and I know for my friend and partner, is that people's lives are
changing. Opportunities for them are changing.
When we look at this legislation broadly, it is about saving lives,
whether it is through issues related to gun safety, whether it is
through getting the help you need, mental health help and addiction
services help, whether it is making sure our schools are safer, making
sure laundry services are available in the schools. It is all be
creating safety and a better quality of life.
I think it is also exciting--you know, we were talking about
community behavioral health clinics with broader investments here on
mental health as well. There is a strengthening of the suicide hotline,
which is so connected to what we have been talking about today.
Telehealth, we know during the pandemic how critically important that
was for mental health services and so on. And that is strengthened.
There is about a billion dollars' worth of investments in some way in
our schools--school health clinics and other opportunities.
What I think is exciting is that we are not only supporting schools
and teachers in all of these areas that are so important, but we are
making sure that when they find a child that needs help, there is
somewhere to go because when you are talking about really investing in
transformative, certified community behavioral health clinics, that
means there is a service in the community.
So if a parent or if a teacher or the principal or the coach or
somebody is saying, ``This young person needs some help,'' they won't
only be trained to identify they need help, they will actually be able
to get them help because there will be services available. And so I
think that is the whole point of all of this.
And I would also finally say, when we talk about funding as
healthcare, traditionally mental health and addiction services have
been funded by grants to stop and start. And so you may need help or
want your child to get help, but the grant that was doing that went
away; or you may suddenly decide you want to deal with your own
addiction, you are finally ready--it is so hard--you are finally ready
to do that, and you reach out and the services aren't there anymore.
And so this is about funding this as healthcare through the
healthcare system, so it doesn't stop and start. It becomes a way of
looking at healthcare above the neck the same as healthcare

[[Page S3123]]

below the neck. And that is why we call it transformative.
And it is such an important commitment. I am so proud of everyone
here that has been so wonderfully supportive and enthusiastic about
taking this big step. This is an area of this bill that is a huge step
that will really save lives and transform communities, I think.
Mr. BLUNT. Just one final thought, we want to be sure that we are
encouraging people to get the healthcare they need. You know, if this
system works like it should work, you really never know what you are
doing in terms of how you have changed people's lives in the future or
the lives of people they might impact.
We don't want to create any stigma here that a resilient, broad-based
mental health system that is part of this bill means that you should be
hesitant to seek mental health help. You know, if you have a mental
health problem, you are more likely to be the victim of a crime than
you are the perpetrator of a crime.
But if those problems get out of control--often suicidal thoughts
first before you have homicidal thoughts--but if this system works the
way it should, who knows what good you have done by just letting people
go through their normal lives as contributing citizens with treating
their mental health and talking about their mental health.
As Senator Stabenow said, being able to talk about somebody in your
family that has a mental health challenge as readily as you talk about
somebody in your family that has a cancer challenge or a dialysis trip
that they have to make multiple times a week to go somewhere or
medicine that they take for something else and talking about this in
the context of the good it does in making our society safer should, in
no way, be interpreted to mean that people with a mental health concern
are unsafe.
But if you don't deal with that problem in the right way at the right
time, it has the potential to be unsafe. Most of these shootings we
have seen, the shooter goes into that shooting clearly anticipating
that they will not come out of that shooting alive either. So it is
suicide; it is homicide; it is things that if you dealt with that
problem a decade earlier--and maybe in some cases, the specific problem
even a week earlier--but if you dealt with it a decade earlier, as
people began to see that, you know, We need to get you some help.
Just like if your hearing is going bad or your eyesight is going bad,
people say, ``Let's get an appointment and go see what we need to do,''
and anybody can be seen at these certified community behavioral health
centers. Anybody can be seen if you are covered by--it is very much
based on the federally qualified health center model. If you have
insurance that covers this, you can go there. If you have a government
program that covers it, you can go there. If you need to pay cash, you
can go there on a very affordable sliding scale. But people are seen,
and nobody--in our State, at least, and I think this would be the case
in all nine of the pilot States--nobody who needs to be seen that day
is not seen that day. Nobody who needs to be seen that day is not seen
that day.
And nobody who needs to be seen isn't seen pretty quickly as you have
time to schedule that appointment. It changes people's lives; it
changes communities; it changes the way we talk about mental health.
As Senator Stabenow said on the floor, the last 50 years after
President Kennedy signed his last bill into law--now, here we are,
almost 60 years after that bill was signed into law taking what would
be, so far, the biggest step toward accomplishing what that Community
Mental Health Act envisioned.
And Senator Stabenow, I will turn to her for any final comments.
Ms. STABENOW. I just want to say thank you to my friend and partner,
and I really do mean friend and partner. And Senator Blunt thinks he is
retiring; I am not going to let him. We have really done so much
important work together, and I am going to miss him dearly.
I am really seriously figuring out a strategy where we are not going
to let you leave the building.
But I am very grateful and, again, for him, for all of the great
staff work, and it is a day to feel good about the ability to come
together and get something done.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warnock). The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, first of all, while Senator Blunt and
Senator Stabenow are still on the floor, I want to thank both of them
for their extraordinary leadership on this mental health issue.
I am so pleased that the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act includes
robust provisions to deal with community mental health.
I have worked with Senator Stabenow on the Senate Finance Committee.
I know her passion on this issue. We have put together bipartisan
working groups that are dealing with a lot of different issues in
regards to mental health. A lot of that has to do with pediatric mental
health, which is very much engaged in the bill that we have before us
today. And a lot of those provisions have been incorporated into the
legislation before us.
But what you have done on these certified behavioral health centers
to be able to have the pilot programs and now to be able to expand them
to more communities, to have a 24/7 facility that is available that is
included in this legislation, that is going to make a real difference
in people's lives.
So I just really want to thank both of you for your tremendous
contributions on this issue. Senator Stabenow, I want you to know,
through the Chair, I agree with you in regards to Senator Blunt. We are
going to miss his personal presence here on the U.S. Senate floor, but
we know that we will be able to continue on having his friendship and
counsel on so many issues that have affected us.
And if my friend from Kentucky would allow me just a few more
minutes, I would like to make a couple comments about the underlying
bill. I know that he is scheduled to speak.
Mr. PAUL. No. Go ahead.
Mr. CARDIN. After the horrific shooting in Uvalde where innocent
children were murdered, inaction was not an option. Congress had to do
something substantive to help stem the epidemic of gun violence that is
scarring our communities daily. For this reason, for all the victims of
gun violence who may not make the headlines every day, I was proud to
vote today in favor of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.
The Senate is taking an important step forward today to break the
decades-long gridlock on gun safety. Legislation will save lives by
boosting funding for community violence intervention and prevention
initiatives like those underway in Baltimore.
It strengthens protection for victims of domestic violence by adding
convicted domestic violence abusers to background checks.
It creates a new source of funding for States to implement red flag
laws which help to keep weapons out of the hands of dangerous
individuals who should not have access to a firearm.
It cracks down on criminals who tried to evade licensing requirements
and makes clear which gun sellers need to register, conduct background
checks, and keep appropriate records. It strengthens the background
check process for those under 21 seeking to buy firearms, by ensuring
that officials have access to juvenile and mental health records.
The bipartisan legislation also provides much needed mental health
resources to communities by providing funding to improve and expand
access to mental health services. It includes policies from the MENTAL
Health for Kids and Underserved Act and the Senate Finance Committee
Bipartisan Mental Health Working Group telehealth discussion draft led
by Senator Thune and me to improve telehealth services for students
with Medicaid and CHIP.
Increasing resources for mental health services are critical, but it
is important that we not conflate mental illness and gun violence. And
I heard Senator Blunt talk about that. Not every instance of gun
violence is connected to mental illness, and not every mental health
crisis prompts the use of a weapon.
To that end, the COVID-19 pandemic has made abundantly clear that our
children need additional mental health resources offered in schools. We
must

[[Page S3124]]

also significantly increase the pipeline of individuals willing to
serve in those school-based mental health service positions.
This legislation addresses that challenge head on and provides
supplemental funding to both train new school-based mental health
service providers and provide students with the specific mental health
services they require.
While not able to meet the needs of every school currently without
counselors or mental health professionals, this bill will make
significant strides to ensure that a significantly greater percentage
of students have access to mental health services.
The legislation we pass in the Senate soon will save lives and help
keep our communities safer, but there are many more reasonable steps we
can and should take, consistent with the Second Amendment rights of
law-abiding citizens.

I will continue to strongly support the establishment of universal
background checks for all gun purchases, the banning of assault weapons
and high-capacity magazine clips from private ownership, and raising
the minimum age to 21 to buy assault weapons, in the absence of a ban.
The Senate should also act quickly to confirm the nomination of
Steven Dettelbach to be the director of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms, and Explosives. The ATF has not had a permanent Senate-
confirmed director since 2015, and the Agency is sorely overdue for
permanent leadership who can carry out its critical mission to stem the
illegal use and trafficking of firearms, among other important
priorities.
To that end, let me point out I am a cosponsor of the Background
Check Expansion Act, which would require checks for all gun sales,
including those by unlicensed sellers; the Assault Weapons Ban Act,
which would generally ban the sale, manufacture, transfer, and
importation of assault weapons; the Background Check Completion Act,
which would eliminate the Charleston loophole that allows for a sale to
go forward if a check is not completed within 3 days; the Keep
Americans Safe Act, which prohibits the importation, sale, manufacture,
transfer, or possession of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of
ammunition.
The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which we can and will pass,
will save lives, but there is still more work that we should do to keep
our students and our communities safe.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, Jon Miltimore, who writes for the Foundation
for Economics and Education writes:

Red flag laws don't involve precogs seeing into the future.
Yet, like precrime, they are designed to prevent a crime
before it happens, even if it means violating civil rights in
the process.

Miltimore asks several important questions: Can people who are
flagged as threats be involuntarily committed? Are they appointed legal
counsel? Will a Federal database be established to track flagged
citizens?
These are questions that civil libertarians should be asking,
especially since many people who are red-flagged will have committed no
crime.
There will simply be, like Philip Dick's ``Anderton,'' people who
might commit or might be a danger to someone. Miltimore reminds us that
the idea of precrime didn't originate with ``The Minority Report.'' In
``1984,'' Orwell writes that Big Brother's ``endless purges, arrests,
tortures, imprisonments, and vaporizations'' are not the result of
people breaking laws, for there are no laws in Oceania. These
punishments, readers learn, are merely the wiping out of persons who
perhaps might commit a crime at some time in the future.
Red flag laws are well-intentioned. Everyone is searching for a way
to prevent the senseless massacres of school mass shootings.
I think accessing the violent criminal records of juveniles is a
reasonable way to try to prevent these killings. Though, really, most
States have already laws on the books that criminalize threats of
violence. The problem isn't a lack of laws to stop these killers, it is
a lack of persistent application of existing laws.
The shooters at Parkland and Buffalo both committed criminal threats
in advance of their killing sprees, and yet law enforcement did not
vigilantly prosecute them. Instead of seeking to enforce existing laws,
States have, one after another, instituted red flag laws to use gun
confiscation orders to try to predict crime in advance.
The problem comes in trying to create such laws and still protect the
constitutional right to bear arms for the innocent.
Basic aspects of the Constitution should not be abandoned, such as
the right to confront your accuser. Some red flag laws allow anonymous
accusers to initiate a gun confiscation order.
That is not just, and that is not constitutional.
We should not abandon the right to legal counsel, the right to
confront the evidence. Many State red flag laws allow gun confiscation
orders without the defendant even knowing they have been accused of
anything. Many State red flag laws allow guns to be confiscated without
hearing evidence from both sides.
Jacob Sullum, in Reason, writes of Colorado's red flag law that the
standard of proof for the initial gun confiscation order when the
accused does not have an opportunity to respond--see, for the initial
order, the accused is not present or doesn't need to be present, and
the evidence comes from one side. But the standard that is used is
called the preponderance of the evidence, meaning the standard used is
that the accused is more likely than not to pose a significant risk.
Historically, gun rights were only removed when the defendant was
convicted of a crime using a constitutional standard of ``beyond a
reasonable doubt.''
As Philip Mulivor writes at PJ Media:

Because ``reasonable doubt'' has been long established as
the standard of proof for criminal cases, it must naturally
apply to judicial proceedings in which an individual, who has
not even been charged with a crime, can be stripped of a
constitutional right. Nevertheless, red-flag laws often rely
on ``a preponderance of the evidence,'' a radically
diminished standard of proof. This, above all other
injuries--

According to Philip Mulivor--

to due process, offends our system of liberty and [a] fair
trial.

Colorado's red flag law, as well as many other States', confiscates
guns using a less-than-constitutional standard.
Using a preponderance-of-evidence standard, which is a standard lower
than the Constitution uses for criminal cases, allows a gun
confiscation order when a judge decides that it is a better than 50-50
chance of a person being a ``significant risk.''
Think about that. It is a little better than 50-50 that the person
who has come before me, whom I have heard evidence only from the person
who doesn't like that person--it is 50-50, maybe it is 51-49, but I am
going to take away a constitutional right, whereas in a court
proceeding where you are convicted of a crime, where you lose your gun
rights because of a felony, the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt.
In practice, the other problem with the red flag laws is that judges
will be inclined to err on the side of caution. When the only evidence
comes from someone who believes the respondent poses a threat, judges
will rarely, if ever, decline to issue a temporary gun confiscation
order.
One might ask if our laws should allow the abridgement of a
constitutional right when only one side of the evidence is presented.
Imagine if the proceeding is a complaint filed by an unhappy spouse in
the midst of a divorce. Most cases of divorce involve one side cheating
or at least one side lying. It is exceedingly difficult to ascertain
the truth in a divorce proceeding even when both sides are heard. One
can just imagine what mischief might occur if divorce proceedings only
allowed testimony from one side.
If you think red flag laws will be easy to adjudicate, just imagine
the case involving Johnny Depp and Amber Heard.
As Sullum points out, there is--from the judge's point of view, ``The
possible downside of rejecting a petition''--a serious downside--``the
death of a respondent or someone else--will weigh

[[Page S3125]]

heavily on the judge's mind, while the temporary deprivation of the
subject's constitutional rights will seem trivial by comparison.''
The presumption will be, if the temporary order, where you only heard
evidence from one side, was granted, that the judge is taking a real
risk by overturning or not granting the permanent order when evidence
is actually heard on both sides.
So you begin with a temporary order--it is ex parte; you don't have
legal counsel; evidence is only heard from one side--but then you get
to the next stage and you say: Well, the person gets justice later.
They are going to get a lawyer. There will be a proceeding. There will
be due process at a later date.
Yet the cards are stacked because think of the perspective of the
judge, think of the predicament of the judge. He now has before him an
emergency order that says this person is a dangerous person. For him or
her to rule otherwise, they are taking a big risk because the first
judge or the first ruling said this person is dangerous. Now the judge
has to say and has to somehow attest and prove and live with themselves
that he is now attesting this person is not a danger.
But the first hearing was only one side of the evidence. The first
hearing may have been an aggrieved party in a divorce. It may have been
an unhappy person who doesn't like you at work. It may have been
someone who doesn't like your political views and is reading online and
says, that so-and-so had a picture of a gun, or that so-and-so made
some sort of violent innuendo. Read Twitter. Find out how much of that
is going on. There is a danger to this.

It is not that anyone is downplaying the sad, awful nature of these
massacres and that we don't want to stop them, but we should do it in a
fashion consistent with the Constitution.
With the red flag law, the initial hearing has evidence only from
those who accuse you of something. That cannot be justice. The bedrock
aspect of justice in our country is that you get legal counsel, that
there is a debate back and forth.
Go to family court--and you think some of this won't originate from
family court? You think there is not going to be an angry spouse who
says: My husband cheated on me. My husband is a hunter. I am going to
accuse him of something so I can get his guns taken away from him.
You have to hear both sides. How could you only hear from the angry
spouse? In divorce, we don't hear from one side. How could we have a
hearing where you take away an amendment--or take away a constitutional
right from the Bill of Rights without hearing evidence on both sides?
You say: Well, we will hear it at the second hearing 14 days later.
The problem with the second hearing is you now have a judge who feels
the incumbent pressure of not changing an initial ruling, a feeling of,
well, we have already decided this person is a threat, and now I have
to take the responsibility of guaranteeing they are not a threat.
See, if you had the jurisprudence, if you had the due process in the
first hearing, then you wouldn't have to worry so much about it being
fair in the second hearing. If you have time to go before a judge, I
see no reason why you don't have time to have your attorney present.
They have time enough to have a hearing. They have time enough to hear
the person accusing you. Shouldn't they have time enough to have
someone defending you?
In Colorado, a temporary gun confiscation order lasts for about 14
days, at which point the judge has to schedule a hearing where the
accused finally has a chance to challenge the claims.
At this second proceeding, the legal standard is a little greater--at
least in Colorado. It goes from preponderance or 50-50--slightly better
than 50-50--it goes from a standard of that to a standard that is
``clear and convincing evidence.''
Under Colorado's red flag law, though, the first gun confiscation
order needs to show imminent risk, but when you get to the second
order, interestingly--the order that is going to last a year--you don't
have to prove that the person is an imminent risk; all you have to say
is that they might be a risk at some point in time. So we have lost
sort of the imminence to it.
In 14 days, the imminence is gone, and now we have a proceeding where
we are going to hear evidence on both sides, and you can have counsel--
not always guaranteed counsel, but you at least can have a lawyer
present. In order to remove a gun confiscation order, though, and
recover one's Second Amendment rights, the burden, though, is now
placed on the accused.
So there is something that is very, very common and is throughout all
of our jurisprudence: that you are innocent until proven guilty; the
burden is on the government. But now, once you have gone through one of
these gun-restraining orders, in order to get your rights back, you
have to prove that you are not a risk. The burden is now on the accused
to prove that either you are sane or that you are not a risk. It is
proving a negative. If you never were a risk, how do you prove that you
are no longer a risk? How do you prove you are the negative of
something? How do you prove that you are not a risk? This turns typical
jurisprudence on its head. Instead of innocent until proven guilty, the
burden is for the accused to prove his or her innocence. This is the
opposite of what our jurisprudence system was founded upon.
Sullum writes:

If the judge issues a [gun confiscation order], it lasts
for 364 days unless the subject seeks early termination and
shows by clear and convincing evidence that he [or she] does
not pose a significant risk.

Rhode Island's red flag law is similar, remaining in effect for about
a year before the accused can challenge it.
For the accused to restore his Second Amendment rights, once again,
the burden is on the accused to prove they are innocent.
The ACLU of Rhode Island asks an important question: How does one
prove this negative, and how does one do it with such a high burden of
proof? The ACLU concludes that in ending a gun confiscation order,
``the burden should be on the GOVERNMENT to prove by clear and
convincing evidence that it should remain in effect, not on the accused
to halt the continued imposition.''
This is the ACLU of Rhode Island saying the burden should be on the
government the same way the burden is traditionally in any other court
proceeding in our country. You don't have to prove you are innocent;
the government must prove you are guilty.

If the government is going to take away your Second Amendment right,
shouldn't the government have to prove that you are either a threat or
that you are guilty of something?
Eagle County Sheriff James Van Beek notes that when the subject of a
gun confiscation order tries to have it terminated, ``the burden of
proof is not on the [government], as it is in every other legal case,
but instead, is placed on the [accused] to prove that the accusations
are wrong.''
Sheriff Van Beek explains that ``proving one's sanity could be very
difficult, as it is highly subjective.'' But proof of one's sanity is
not enough to remove a valid gun confiscation order since the accused
can be a threat even if determined to be sane.
Van Beek also worries that ``if a person is truly in a mental crisis,
this aggressive approach will create even greater stress, possibly
resulting in a violent overreaction, as their personal property has
been taken without a crime ever having been committed.''
In Maryland, this is precisely what happened. When police attempted
to serve a gun confiscation order, a fight ensued. The person was
startled by it. He had never heard there was a problem. They showed up
at his house, and he ended up dying in the ensuing altercation.
When police seize guns from the subject of a gun confiscation order,
Sheriff Van Beek notes, ``[t]here is no warning or ability to defend
themselves against the charges.''
In addition, if troubled individuals understand that seeking care
exposes them to the risk of a gun confiscation order, some may be
inclined to avoid psychiatric help.
With the large universe of people who can initiate a gun confiscation
complaint, from ex-girlfriends, to former roommates, to grandparents,
to in-laws, to second cousins, Sullum concludes that ``the
opportunities for malice or honest error are multiplied.''
In some ways, the process really is biased throughout because of the
risk

[[Page S3126]]

aversion on the part of the judge. Once a gun confiscation order is
issued and the accused has been labeled a threat, many judges will
simply not want the responsibility of judging otherwise because of the
deadly consequences if they are wrong.
Sullum concludes:

Given that bias, the indeterminacy of ``significant risk,''
and the difficulty of predicting [an accused's] behavior, it
seems inevitable that the vast majority of people who lose
their constitutional rights under this sort of law will [in
actuality] pose no real threat to themselves or others.

Philip Mulivor, writing at PJ Media on the constitutional
deficiencies of gun confiscation orders, points out another deficiency.
He says:

The Void-for-Vagueness Doctrine, a cornerstone of American
jurisprudence, requires laws to be written ``in a manner that
does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory
enforcement.''

He goes on to say:

By forcing a judge to predict a person's future criminal
behavior in the absence of any violation of law, red-flag
statutes descend to the most disreputable level of
``arbitrary and discriminatory'' legislation.

Mulivor concludes that ``due process is always denied when a law
fails to comport with the Vagueness Doctrine's imperative for clear and
consistent standards.''

Fortunately, the Vagueness Doctrine--

This is also Mulivor's point--

is most likely to prevail when an ambiguous law threatens a
constitutional right, such as free speech or the right to
keep and bear arms.

The ACLU of Rhode Island has written perhaps one of the best reasoned
critiques of red flag laws.
The ACLU of Rhode Island writes:

We are deeply concerned about [the red flag law's] breadth,
its impact on civil liberties, and the precedent it sets for
the use of coercive measures against individuals not because
they are alleged to have committed any crime, but because
somebody believes they might someday commit one.

The ACLU of Rhode Island writes that the court order authorized by
this legislation would be issued without any indication that the person
poses an imminent threat to others. The order would be issued without
any evidence that the person ever committed, or has even threatened to
commit, an act of violence with a firearm.
The ACLU continues: The Rhode Island red flag law--that the standard
for seeking and issuing an order is so broad it could routinely be used
against people who engage in overblown political rhetoric on social
media.
Realize what we are talking about here. We are talking about red flag
laws being used against people for overblown political rhetoric. If you
have been on social media, that is 90 percent of what is on social
media.
This is, once again, the ACLU of Rhode Island: Without the presence
of counsel, individuals who have no intent to commit violent crimes
could nonetheless unwittingly incriminate themselves regardless of
lesser offenses because, when they are brought in without a lawyer,
they can be questioned as to other things that could possibly be
illegal.
``The heart of the legislation''--Rhode Island's gun confiscation
orders--``requires speculation--on the part of both the petitioner''--
the accuser--``and judges--about an individual's risk of possible
violence.''
Mulivor writes:

But psychiatry and the medical sciences have not succeeded
in this realm, and there is no basis for believing courts
will do any better.

He concludes that the potential impact on individuals subject to
these gun confiscation orders involves much more than a long-term
seizure of lawfully owned firearms.
This is once again from the Rhode Island ACLU. They point out that
without a right to appointed counsel, respondents can be forced to
submit to a mental health evaluation, be subject to fairly widespread
notifications even before a court order has been used against them,
face contempt proceedings and prison for failing to abide by any part
of the order and unwittingly place themselves in danger.
So the Rhode Island red flag law actually requires that people be
notified that you are a risk to them, that they are a potential victim,
before the order is issued. So we are not talking just about the lack
of due process in the sense that you don't have a lawyer there, you may
not have been accused of a crime or informed that you might be
potentially going to commit a crime, but, also, in advance of the judge
even making the judgment, the police are told that if this accusation
is being made, they must inform people.
So you have to imagine the innocent. We can all imagine the guilty.
We say: Lock `em up. Take away their guns.
But imagine the innocent. Imagine someone who is innocent and he is
in a divorce proceeding and his angry spouse calls up and says, He's a
threat. They go, and even before the judge makes the court order, the
judge and the police say: We must inform those who he might be a threat
to.
What if that involves his business place? Are we going to inform his
boss? Are we going to inform his friends? We are going to call all the
schools in the area.
What if they are innocent? You haven't even heard the evidence that
is only coming from one side. What if they are innocent? Can you
imagine a person's life--entire life--being ruined? How do you ever get
employment again? Do you think he could be fired if the boss has now
been called by the police and they say: We have a gun order against
this guy because we think he's a threat. He might be a threat to his
fellow employees; he might be a threat to his wife; he might be a
threat to schools. We are going to do this, and we are letting you know
so you can be aware.
Who wants that person to work with them?
If you are doing a background check years later and they have had a
gun confiscation order in their background, who ever wants to work with
this person?
So you have to imagine what happens to the innocent. We can all
imagine the terrible, horrible murdering psychopaths who committed
these massacres and how we want them locked up, how we want to prevent
the killings.
But you have to imagine when you have sweeping laws, what are the
potential abuses of the law. You have to imagine what it would be like
to be an innocent person accused of something in a divorce proceeding
where it escalates and they ask for a gun confiscation order and it is
based on malice and it is based on lies and deceit and anger over a
broken marriage.

This can and will happen. It happens in family court every day. The
difference between a divorce and a gun confiscation order is that in a
divorce, if it is very messy, you hear both sides. In a gun
confiscation order, the initial order to take away a gun, in almost
every red flag law, involves only the judge and the accuser. Nobody
believes that to be justice. It has never been justice.
I mean, when people point out the injustice of systems in legal
systems, they go back to Venice, and they point out the doge. They had
a lion's mouth, and you could put your complaint in the mouth, and it
was anonymous, and they would make people walk the Bridge of Sighs to
prison or to death.
That wasn't justice. We point that out as the height of injustice--
anonymous accusations, hearing only one side.
There are some people who argue that the bedrock of our jurisprudence
is the adversarial process of the legal system. The adversarial process
is: You get a lawyer, the other side gets a lawyer. And you know what?
We go one step further in our system. The government has a lawyer. You
have a lawyer. But you know what? The presumption is that you are
innocent.
We start out with the presumption of the individual being innocent,
and we add the hurdle to the government--the burden of proof that they
must prove your guilt. And in the Constitution we say for a criminal
offense, we must prove the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And yet we
are talking about taking away fundamental constitutional rights with
only hearing the evidence from one side and the standard would be a
preponderance of the evidence.
What is a preponderance? It is 50-50. And if it is 51-49, we think
the person may be a threat. But we have only heard from their spouse,
and we didn't hear from them. We only heard from their estranged spouse
or we only heard from the person who is angry with them from work or we
heard only

[[Page S3127]]

from the person from the opposite political persuasion that read their
writings on the internet.
We can see. We can all see the mischief for this.
So I wish, in the middle of this, in the middle of these tragedies,
that we would think of what we could do.
New York has already got these red flag laws. New York has got lots
of them. New York has got a lot of gun control, and yet the shooting
happened in Buffalo.
But the kid in Buffalo had made a threat. It is a felony to make a
threat to kill others. He could have been prosecuted.
So I fear, even with this law, if we don't pay attention to the laws
we already have, if we don't persist and persevere in prosecuting these
kids that show this danger--we already had--it is not that we just had
the signals they might; they are committing crimes. Why don't we
prosecute them? Why don't we use the laws on the books? But I would say
that there is a big risk today to encouraging, across the country,
jurisprudence where you don't have legal representation, where the
adjudication is based on evidence only from one side, and then you
finally get your day in court and you get your lawyer, and everybody is
petrified of reversing a decision where you have been named a threat.
I think we want the same thing in the end. My hope, though, is that
people would be very careful because I would not want to see a day
where we change and reverse justice in our system such that people are
guilty until proven innocent.
The bedrock of American jurisprudence is ``innocent until proven
guilty.'' The burden is on the government. And until we can make red
flag laws consistent with innocent until proven guilty, we should
reject them.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.

Tribute to Colin McGinnis

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I would like to honor a longtime member of
the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee staff, Colin
McGinnis, as he moves on to a new, well-deserved chapter: retirement.
He will be spending more time with his beloved wife Claire--and with
the first person he visited upon retirement--his 95-year-old mother
Barb, at her peaceful lake home in Minnesota.
Colin is a lifelong public servant. He spent 33 years working in
Congress. Even when he briefly left this institution, he remained in
service, working for the Orthodox Relief Service.
To say the least, Colin's career is unparalleled. Colin grew up in
Morris, MN, and attended Carleton College in Northfield, MN. He went on
to earn his masters of divinity from Yale University--and we saw those
divinity school values woven throughout his career.
Colin's congressional career began in service to his home State. He
worked for Representative Jim Oberstar, Representative Bruce Vento,
Representative Terry Sabo, and the former Carleton College professor,
Senator Paul Wellstone. In each office, he made a positive difference
for Minnesotans.
Colin was serving as chief of staff to Senator Wellstone at the time
of his tragic death in 2002. It was a catastrophic loss for Minnesota
and for our country. And for his staff, it was a heartbreaking personal
tragedy. Colin took care of his colleagues and got them through an
unimaginably difficult time. He was a rock for the office and led with
composure and grace while grieving a mentor he met while he was a
student at Carleton, then later worked with for a decade.
In 2008, Colin became the acting staff director of the Senate
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee under Chairman Dodd. He
led the committee through one of the worst financial crises in U.S.
history.
As always, Colin stepped up. It was a scary time. The economy was in
freefall. We had never seen anything like that in our lifetime. Colin
was the steady hand that Senator Dodd and the committee needed. He was
a trusted and an invaluable adviser to Chairman Dodd, Chairman Johnson,
and to me.
For the last 9 years, Colin has served as the committee's policy
director. I remember when I first took over as ranking member on the
committee, meeting with the staff in our hearing room on the fifth
floor of Dirksen in late 2014. I didn't know anyone yet, and these
talented public servants were experts in their field. Many had spent
years working for the committee.
Frankly, I was a little nervous. And at the end of the meeting, of
course it was Colin who came up to talk to me, reassure me, break the
ice. He could not have been more kind and welcoming.
Colin's many, many accomplishments with the Banking and Housing
Committee include his instrumental work on the Joint Comprehensive Plan
of Action--the Obama administration's diplomatic success to limit
Iran's nuclear program--the bipartisan Countering America's Adversaries
Through Sanctions Act in 2017, and the historic Anti-Money Laundering
Act and the Corporate Transparency Act in 2020.
That bill was the product of over a decade and a half of attempts and
months of bipartisan negotiations--often expertly shepherded by Colin.
Today, its passage is giving law enforcement new, modern tools to stop
human traffickers and other criminals and root out shell companies.
In his 30-plus years on the Hill, Colin has seen administrations and
majorities of both parties come and go. And through them all, he had an
uncommon skill at fostering relationships across the aisle. Throughout
his career, Colin also became known for his deep knowledge on
international sanctions--he was the one that everyone wanted to work
with. Sanctions have become one of our country's primary foreign policy
tool over the last decade. And Colin was the expert. And of course,
that expertise has probably never been more relevant than it has this
year, as we have worked to unite this body in support of the
President's strong sanctions on Russia.
But these wins are only a small part of Colin's lasting legacy on the
Hill--he impacted everyone he worked with. He could work effectively
with pretty much everyone--Republicans and Democrats alike, through
Presidential administrations of both parties. Colin impressed all of us
with that effectiveness, with his dedication to his work, and, perhaps
most of all, with his kindness.
He worked toward big-picture goals--from mental health parity to
international sanctions--but he never lost sight of the individuals:
the people whom he worked with and the people whom we serve.
Those who were lucky enough to work alongside Colin describe him as
someone who makes the hard things look flawless, day in and day out--an
impressive feat in this line of work. Among staff, he was known for his
love of language. Colin sometimes referred to his work as ``toiling in
the legislative vineyards''--one of many examples that reflect his
natural optimism. He is a voracious reader, and he made good use of the
Library of Congress, often getting several books a week delivered to
the office.
He always had time for his coworkers, regardless of their position--
from the staff director to the interns. He carved out space for
everyone to grow professionally and personally. He challenged us, too.
Colin had an open-door policy. His office was always tidy and
decorated with pictures of friends and family. And most days, you could
find a member of staff--sometimes Banking and Housing, but often from
other offices--sitting on his couch asking for advice and counsel.
Colin always had wisdom to share.
Colin commuted every day from Baltimore for 24 years--rain or shine.
He came in to work early so that, most days, he could catch the 5 p.m.
train back to Baltimore and sit down at the dinner table with his
family.
To his wife Claire and their children Killian and Patrick: Thank you
for sharing him with us.
Colin's dedication and commitment to public service made a difference
for so many. Our country is a better place because of his service. And
each of us are better because of his leadership.
On behalf of everyone in my office and on the committee and all those
who had the honor of working with him, we congratulate Colin on his
career, we wish him well in retirement, and we thank him for his
service.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
(The remarks of Mr. PADILLA pertaining to the introduction of S. 4480

[[Page S3128]]

are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. PADILLA. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.

S. 2938

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the bill
before us.
All too often, we very often applaud instinctively the concept of
``bipartisanship'' but fail to actually evaluate the policies
underlying bipartisan legislation and the effect that our policies may
have on law-abiding Americans.
Bipartisanship is a good thing. In fact, bipartisanship is an
inevitability in any legislative body that contains multiple parties
with significant representation. It certainly is an indispensable
feature of this legislative body, as it is virtually impossible to pass
any legislation--with only the rarest of exceptions arising at most
once or twice in a year--except through bipartisanship.
The question isn't whether to achieve bipartisanship or whether it is
good but what policies are produced through the bipartisanship in
question.
Don't get me wrong--in this polarized climate, it is good when people
of different political affiliations and different backgrounds,
representing different parts of our great country, are able to come
together and have productive conversations. These conversations occur
with some regularity. In fact, they occur far more often than most
people would assume based on depictions in the news and entertainment
media in this country.
It is also good when those conversations lead to legislation that is
further refined on the Senate floor through robust debate and an
amendment process, one that refines the legislation in question to make
sure that all viewpoints have been taken into account. But that is,
tragically, not what happened with this legislation. No one--no one
except a small ``gang'' of Senators and a few favored members of the
news media--no one was allowed to view the legislation until Tuesday
evening. Less than an hour later, less than an hour after it had been
released to the public, released to us, the Senate was forced to vote
on whether we should proceed to the legislation in question.
Immediately after that vote, the majority leader filled the amendment
tree and filed the cloture motion to end debate on the bill without a
single hearing held or a single amendment having been debated or
considered or even offered. In fact, it couldn't be offered because
prior to that time, there was nothing to amend.
Now, less than 48 hours after we received the text of this
legislation for the very first time, the Senate has voted to end
debate--a debate that never really started; a debate that involved not
a single amendment passed--no, not one single one; a debate in which
there was not a single opportunity for Members to offer improvements to
the legislation. No. This small gang came together, materialized, and
put together a bill. It released the bill, and all of a sudden, we were
expected to vote on it up or down, yes or no, no changes, no questions
asked.
Those of us who are not members of this particular gang were told,
essentially: Too bad. We don't want your input. Your only option is to
support this entire bill, warts and all, ambiguities and all, vagueness
and all, without any changes; or, on the other hand, you can oppose it,
and you would be accused of savagely not wanting to protect children
from school shootings.
That is not what our Founding Fathers envisioned for the U.S. Senate.
It is not how they imagined it working. It is also not how it worked
for hundreds of years.
For more than two centuries, the U.S. Senate functioned in a way that
has had as its distinguishing characteristic those procedures that
earned it the title of being the world's greatest deliberative body.
Chief among those features was the willingness and the ability of each
Member to offer up improvements in the form of amendments and have
those amendments considered, debated, discussed, and ultimately voted
upon.
But, unfortunately, this is how the Senate has been run over the last
few Congresses. Sadly, we have seen some of this under Democratic and
Republican leadership alike. This isn't just bad news for the Senate;
it is especially bad news for the American people, who deserve better
from an entity that still calls itself the world's greatest
deliberative body.

It is not without notice that this has become a problem. It is not
without notice that we have deviated from this. The thing is, when we
deviate from our own procedure and our own processes, the substance
shows. The inadequacies of the substance are the natural, foreseeable
result. They are the inevitable product of a defiant refusal to abide
by our most time-honored procedures: rules and customs.
In this case, the substantive problems with this bill are pretty
significant. The restrictions that it imposes on the Second Amendment
rights of law-abiding Americans are significant, and those impositions
come about in such a way that burdens the American people, while doing
little or nothing to address actual gun violence committed by
prohibited persons in many of our largest cities.
You would think that a bill that purports to be able to keep kids
safe in schools would at least have some funding for school security
measures or school resource officers, but if you felt that, you would
be wrong.
I am very skeptical of Federal intervention in education. If Congress
is going to provide billions of dollars of mental health funding to
schools and claim to keep kids safe, we should at least allow States to
use some of their funding for security measures, like reinforced doors,
school resource officers, or training programs for teachers who are
allowed to conceal and carry if they choose.
This bill provides Federal grant funding for State red flag laws
without sufficient due process protections. This is a trick--a trick--
often used by Congress, increasingly so of late. Congress does this
sometimes when it has no constitutional authority and sometimes when it
lacks political will.
Instead of passing the Federal law at issue--the Federal law that it
wishes it could pass--Congress bribes the States with money to pass the
laws that Congress wants, that Congress wishes Congress could pass but
for whatever reason can't or won't. This allows Members of Congress to
go to their home States and take credit for doing ``something,'' even
if that ``something'' does nothing to address the problem.
That impulse to do something has been noticed. It has been noticed by
Professor Robert Leider of George Mason University and the Antonin
Scalia Law School. He penned an op-ed in today's copy of the Wall
Street Journal. In that op-ed, he begins with the following words:

When mass shootings such as Uvalde happen, a rallying cry
emerges for Congress to do something--anything--to prevent
such tragedies in the future. On Tuesday, senators introduced
the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act--their effort to do
something. But when your sole rallying cry is to do
something, the thing you do may be worse than the status quo.
The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act is a terrible bill, and
in its current form, it ought to be defeated by a bipartisan
coalition of Congress.

Professor Leider then goes on to explain why opposition to this
legislation ought to be coming from the left and from the right. He
explains in great detail why Democrats and Republicans, liberals and
conservatives alike, sometimes for similar reasons, sometimes for
different reasons, should be outraged, should be upset by this
legislation. It offends people at every end of the political spectrum.
I will go more into some of those details in a moment from Professor
Leider.
But, look, when the government seeks to deprive an American citizen--
a law-abiding American citizen--of a constitutional right, we have
protections in place, and those protections can be found among other
provisions in the Constitution. They can be found in the 5th and 14th
Amendments to the Constitution. In both provisions, you have a due
process clause. In both the 5th and the 14th Amendments, it says that a
person can't be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law.
What does ``due process'' mean? Well, ``due process'' means the right
to be heard. You can't have a deprivation of life, liberty, or property
without due process. The word ``without'' has been interpreted and
fairly does mean ``before.'' You have to have due process before they
take it away from you. It

[[Page S3129]]

means meaningful review at a meaningful time. It doesn't--it can't mean
they can take away life, liberty, or property and then ask questions
later. It doesn't mean they can take away life, liberty, and property
and thereafter demand that the person from whom they took it return to
litigate his or her right to exercise that thing that was taken.
Red flag laws enacted in States thus far get this exactly backward--
confiscation first; due process later. That is not how due process
works. That is not what due process is. You can call that process, but
it is not due process, not for these purposes. It doesn't work.
The confiscation before notice and a hearing, this model--this
confiscation before notice and hearing model of red flag laws raises
concerns of civil asset forfeiture, when a person is forced to forfeit
her firearm pursuant to a civil order without a hearing.
This legislation places overly broad and undefined restrictions on
Second Amendment rights--the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding
citizens--creating the risk that false allegations could and inevitably
would lead to the deprivation of a constitutional right with no
recourse afforded to address the harm suffered.
Now, when you look at the legislation, there are pieces of the
legislation that pay lipservice to due process. While the legislation,
you might say, draws near unto due process with its lips, its heart is
far from it. When you read the fine print, the due process of which it
refers is not due process at all; it is post-depravation due process.
The very specific procedural protections that we associate with due
process--an opportunity to be heard before a fair, impartial tribunal;
the opportunity to offer up evidence; the opportunity to cross-examine
adverse witnesses, for example--things that we associate as
inextricably intertwined with due process because they are, those
things are all articulated at the back end of this due process
paragraph of the bill.
And it makes reference to the fact that that is the type of due
process that, in the view of the bill, can, according to State law, be
made either before or after the constitutional depravation in question,
depending on the dictates of the State law at issue. That is not due
process; that is something else, and that creates a lot of problems.
There are other problems with the legislation dealing with juveniles,
problems arising out of uncertainties that the legislation itself
creates.
Now, I want to be clear about something: I could certainly consider
supporting a measure prohibiting certain older juveniles who have been
convicted of crimes as adults, crimes that if they had been committed
by an adult would have been deemed felonies, and, on that basis, deem
them prohibited persons. I could consider that. There are a lot of
public policy questions surrounding that.
And I think there are a lot of people on the left and on the right
who would have concerns with opening that up, with saying: We are going
to allow--in fact, require--juvenile records to be entered into the
NICS system. Remember, the NICS system is a database, a database that
is used to identify prohibited persons, persons who are prohibited from
buying or otherwise acquiring or even possessing firearms and
ammunition, as defined by 18 U.S.C. section 922(g) or, alternatively,
persons to whom one may not lawfully sell or otherwise transfer
firearms or ammunition, as defined by 18 U.S.C. section 922(d). Both
922(d) that talks about those to whom you may not transfer a weapon and
922(g), those who may not acquire or possess a weapon--both provisions
have nine paragraphs attached to them. In each instance, the nine
paragraphs are virtually identical. In other words, the universe of
those who may not buy or possess weapons is essentially the same as
those to whom you may not sell them.
It is almost essential--in fact, the only distinction I can think of
under existing law is that while under 922(g) you may not possess a
firearm if you are a convicted felon, that same prohibition extends in
922(d) in such a way that you may not sell or otherwise transfer a
firearm to a person who is either a convicted felon or has been
indicted for a felony and is standing under indictment, under currently
pending criminal charges. Other than that, as far as I can tell, 922(d)
and 922(g) are coextensive.
This legislation changes that a little bit, and it prohibits the
transfer of a weapon, under 922(d), to a person who, as a juvenile,
stood convicted of a crime that would be a felony. Now, this creates
all sorts of uncertainties in the law because, in many if not most
States, juvenile proceedings--what we would consider juvenile criminal
proceedings--are, in fact, not criminal proceedings. The defendant
isn't entitled to a jury trial. And in the Federal criminal system, a
juvenile criminal defendant may not have a jury trial; that even if
they want one, even if all the parties were to agree, they can't allow
them.
In many State systems, including the State system in my State, the
State of Utah, juvenile criminal proceedings are not even criminal
proceedings; they are civil proceedings, very often conducted under
civil law procedures rather than criminal law procedures. So the same
protections aren't in place.
Again, I am open to the idea of opening this up because I think there
are some juveniles who commit some offenses, particularly in their
later teenage years, that perhaps ought to be taken into account for
purposes of 922(d) such that you can't give them a gun or under 922(g)
such that they may not possess a gun without committing a felony.
I think we could have that debate and discussion. We should have that
debate and discussion. That hasn't occurred here. Instead, what we have
done is muddied the waters by creating a very significant difference
between 922(d) and 922(g), between those prohibited from being given a
gun and those who are prohibited from possessing a gun. But we haven't
defined it well, and it is not really clear what it is that we are
doing or what it is that makes it fair; nor is it clear, as I read the
legislation--and, again, it has been less than 48 hours since we have
had access to it. It is about 80 pages long. It doesn't read like a
fast-paced novel. It is full of cross-references.
And even someone such as a former Federal prosecutor who is very
familiar with these laws and prosecuted cases under them--even with
that level of familiarity, it has taken me some time to get through it
and understand what it means. In fact, to this moment, it is difficult
for me to ascertain exactly how far these changes go.
It is not clear to me, for instance, which kinds of criminal records
for juveniles will be added onto the NICS system. Remember, the NICS
system is this database that identifies those prohibited from
possessing firearms or being given firearms under 922(g) and 922(d),
respectively. It is a database that keeps track of those prohibited
persons. It is not clear to me which types of juvenile records can be
taken into account in those proceedings.

This also allows for a prohibited--one can be a prohibited person
under 922(d) and 922(g) if they have been adjudicated--and this is
terribly awkward language--if they have been adjudicated as a ``mental
defective'' or if they have been ordered institutionalized. No one
really knows what that term means. It is a sloppy term. It is an
offensive term to many, and it is full of uncertainty.
We have compounded the uncertainty by now saying that mental health
records of older teenagers, those between 16 and 18, will now be
uploaded onto the NICS system such that certain mental health crises
one experiences as an older teenager could result in an older teenager
later in life being unable to possess a firearm without committing a
felony.
That raises some concerns--or at least those drafting the bill would
probably interpret it differently, to say they may possess one in some
cases but not necessarily be someone to whom a gun can lawfully be sold
or otherwise transferred. That also raises additional questions.
Sections 922(d) and 922(g) are currently nearly identical, except in
the rare exception that I noted just a moment ago.
Yet we have had no conversations about these. We have had no
conversations about what this does for juvenile criminal justice, about
what this does to the rights of individuals who, as juveniles, may not
fully understand the ramifications of the criminal proceedings against
them or of decisions regarding their mental health at the

[[Page S3130]]

time those decisions are made and that might affect them later in life,
including after they have become adults.
My point is not to say these things don't matter. They do. And I
think there are a lot of these people who probably shouldn't have guns
and should be prohibited persons, but we need to know what we are
doing. We need to agree on what is actually happening because right now
we take some areas of the law that are already fraught with some
uncertainty, and we are magnifying that uncertainty manyfold.
I think that is dangerous, and I think it is dangerous in a way that
both Democrats and Republicans ought to find offensive--sometimes for
the same reasons, sometimes for entirely different reasons. My point is
this. There is no reason why legislation like this--it does--it has got
some good provisions in it. There is no reason why this couldn't be
amended in such a way that would allow more Members of this body to
vote for it or vote against it, depending on what it looked like at the
end of the day.
But the way it is written, it has got a lot of problems with it. We
have got the due process problem that I mentioned with the red flag
laws. That is their distinguishing characteristic is due process
problem. You have got the juvenile records problem that I mentioned
just a moment ago. It is not fair to people to leave them in that state
of uncertainty, especially juveniles. So that ought to be a concern to
all of us.
Perhaps we might get to the place where these provisions do just what
the proponents of the bill say that it does. But in this instance, as
in so many other areas, the best way to get there is to go through the
normal deliberative process, the process that long defined this
institution as the world's greatest deliberative body, which includes a
full opportunity to present and vote on amendments and to hear concerns
and objections raised by Members of this body, Members of this body
some of whom have experience with the statutory framework in question
and can offer insights as to what might have been overlooked.
Now, look, I speak here of my colleagues who were part of this
effort. I speak with great respect toward them and admiration for the
fact that I think they are motivated, by and large, by a desire to help
people. I don't think any Member of this body wakes up every day and
says, ``I want to make America less safe'' or ``I want to make America
less fair.'' I don't think that is what is going on.
But I do think we delude ourselves, we sell ourselves short, and we
harm our constituents when we pretend that it is OK to pull the
functional equivalent, the legislative equivalent, of running through a
congested intersection with our eyes closed and think that that is not
going to cause problems. That is exactly what we are doing here. This
is the legislative equivalent of driving with your eyes closed through
a busy intersection, and we are making some really big mistakes here.
And a lot of these are mistakes that could be fixed with relative ease.
Now we will never know. We will never know what might have happened.
It may be that this could have been something that, had we gone through
the whole amendment process, could have been supported by nearly all or
even all Members of this body, but we will never know of that now. We
will never have that opportunity. Instead, we are going to push through
this rushed piece of legislation that I am convinced no one had read in
its entirety prior to its release and, essentially, no one was familiar
with by the time we started voting on it.
And then we were told: No opportunity to make it better. If you
notice a problem with it--and I have noticed several--we really don't
care to hear about it. Expediency demands that we somehow just rush
this through.
But the American people deserve better. There are, moreover, other
provisions of the legislation that have raised some eyebrows in some
corners. They are provisions of this bill that provide funding to
encourage States to provide Medicaid and CHIP services in schools under
the auspices of an effort to increase access to mental health, to
mental health services in the schools.
While Federal Medicaid funding is, of course, something that cannot
lawfully be used to perform abortions except in the case of rape,
incest, or to preserve the life of the mother, some have pointed out
that schools under this legislation easily could use the clinics
established under the bill as a means of accomplishing the provision of
abortions and also prescribe abortifacient drugs using State rather
than Federal Medicaid funds. There has been some discussion even today
about this. The fact that we still don't know this is troubling to
many. I certainly would like to know what the definitive answer to it
is. As far as I can tell, it does open the door to that, and we ought
to at least have that discussion.
Now, there are some legislative options before us that address things
that can be done practically to improve safety. One is the Luke and
Alex School Safety Act, which is included in this bill. Like I said,
there are plenty of things in this bill that are unobjectionable. And
this is, certainly, first among them. And it codifies into law the
Federal clearinghouse on school safety. I spoke in favor of this bill
at a Judiciary Committee hearing just last week.
Additionally, I support the bill's provisions increasing penalties
for straw purchasers who know or have reason to know that the gun they
are purchasing for someone might be used in a crime. And I am open to
other proposals that tackle safety in schools head-on.
Senator Marshall, from Kansas, has an interesting amendment that
would use unspent COVID funds to improve school safety and school
security.
Look, there are a lot of things in this legislation that really ought
to be discussed in greater detail. And we haven't been able to discuss
them. We haven't been able to debate them. We haven't been able to
amend them because of the rushed process. It begs the question: Why are
we in such a rush? Don't America's schoolchildren and America's
teachers and America's moms and dads deserve better consideration than
this?
Schools are out for the summer at the moment. It would actually be a
good thing for us to take a few more weeks to debate and discuss these
things and get to a better solution. Why are we rushing it?
I want to get back to the juvenile provisions for a minute. This is
something that Professor Leider speaks about at some length. And he
raised some observations that I hadn't entirely considered. And I would
like to share some portions of that. At the end of this, I will be
offering this.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
this op-ed submitted by Professor Leider.
Professor Leider describes one feature of the bill as particularly
discouraging, particular troubling. I spoke of the juvenile provisions
a moment ago. I identified some troubling features of them. Professor
Leider gives additional commentary on this and provides additional
observations, not all of which had been noticed by me. Here is how he
puts it:

The most significant provision in the bill is the
prohibition against firearm possession by those convicted of
a misdemeanor violent crime against a dating partner--closing
the ``boyfriend loophole.''

He goes through this after he has discussed the problems with the
juvenile provisions, noting that this will create disparities. It will
cause uncertainties with juvenile offenders of one sort or another. And
then he does go through a fuller explanation of how those operating
under the boyfriend loophole provisions might be affected.
He continues:

But the senators who negotiated this bill evidently
couldn't agree on the definition of a dating partner. They
define ``dating relationship'' as a ``relationship between
individuals who have or have recently had a continuing
serious relationship of a romantic or intimate nature.'' But
relationships come in all forms, and this definition provides
little guidance.

He continues:

The senators provided three criteria for consideration: (1)
the length of the relationship, (2) the nature of the
relationship and (3) the frequency and type of interaction
between the people involved in the relationship.

Professor Leider continues:

This means that a ``continuing serious relationship'' will
be some function of quantity of dates, length of time and
physical intimacy. But these vague factors don't provide fair
notice and are susceptible to inconsistent application.

We pause there to just note what he is referring to. The so-called
boyfriend

[[Page S3131]]

loophole exists because two of the provisions in 18 USC 922(g),
defining the prohibitive persons, paragraphs 8 and 9 respectively,
apply to those individuals who have either been in receipt of a
restraining order arising out of a domestic relationship, under
paragraph 8, or those who have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of
domestic violence under paragraph 9 of 922(g).
In both cases, there has to be a relationship that makes it about a
domestic situation, has to be an intimate partner of one sort or
another. Current law tends to define that as a spouse--when you are
dealing with a spouse or a live-in partner, for example. But this
provision seeks to address what the sponsors of the bill referred to as
the ``boyfriend loophole,'' meaning what about someone who is not
married and who doesn't reside with or hasn't resided in the past,
didn't reside at the time with the person but was nonetheless in a type
of romantic relationship.
Now, here again, it is not a bad impulse to want to close some
ambiguities in the law, but you have got to do it with language that
makes sense. You have to do it with language that puts people on fair
notice of what the consequences of a guilty plea might be or what the
consequences of not litigating more aggressively in the context of a
restraining order or something like that might be. Particularly in the
context of 922(g)9, where we are dealing with a domestic violence
misdemeanor, the person needs to know when that person is being asked
to plead guilty what consequences that might have on the person later
in life. And those questions aren't answered here.
Professor Leider continues:

By failing to define ``dating relationship''--

The term ``dating relationship''--

[A]dequately--

That is the term of art that they introduced into this legislation--

Congress is effectively delegating the critical question of
who falls within this ban. To whom it is delegating the hard
details remains to be determined. Perhaps it will be to the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which
has regulatory authorities over firearms or the courts may
decide as they resolve cases. Either way, Congress has yet
again handed off its responsibility for defining crimes to
unelected bureaucrats and judges.

Then he continues:

Until a specific definition exists, it is unclear how the
federal government will implement this prohibition. Suppose a
criminal-records check indicates that a potential purchaser
has committed assault or battery. What next? Maybe the trial
record will show that the defendant was in a relationship
with the complaining witness. Or maybe it won't.
If such information is available, how is the examiner
supposed to gauge the relationship? The available records
likely won't provide the precise details of the relationship.
Even if they do, the examiner still has to decide whether the
relationship was serious enough to trigger the gun
disability. The Senate compromise feeds many prospective gun
owners to the bureaucratic wolves.

Professor Leider's point is an excellent one. When people are going
through criminal proceedings, if they have been charged with a
misdemeanor and they are deciding how aggressively to fight it--whether
to take it to trial, whether to plead guilty, under what terms to plead
guilty--it is nearly always going to be in State court. After all, very
few criminal convictions are in criminal court, a tiny percentage of
them. And the prohibited persons, as defined under sections 922(d) and
922(g), the underlying convictions can be either State or Federal.
These proceedings, nearly always taking place in State court rather
than Federal court, are not going to be in a position, it is not
knowing to be within their jurisdiction to decide whether, or to what
extent, this will put them in that status, in that boyfriend status, in
that status of a ``dating relationship.''
The fact that the term is so vague, the structure is so broad and
undefined that it is not reasonably possible to know what consequences
the law might attach to a guilty plea in that circumstance or to a
conviction following a jury trial in that circumstance.
You know, James Madison said, in ``Federalist No. 62''--and I am
paraphrasing here--something to the effect that it will be of little
avail to the American people that their laws may be written by
individuals of their own choosing. If those laws are so voluminous,
complex, or ever changing that they can't reasonably know from one day
to the next what the law requires of them, this is one of those
moments. We are imposing a pretty significant restriction--a
restriction on a constitutionally protected right, one that may well
apply for the rest of their life in some cases without them even
knowing what is happening.
This is the kind of rain that will fall on the criminal defendant of
all backgrounds, of all political views. Every demographic could be
harmed by this in one way or another. So it really would be better if
we were taking the time to draft this legislation carefully. And that
is my No. 1 complaint. That is why I can't vote for it.
There are some things in here I wish I could vote for, but they have
lumped it all together. They said: Here you go. Take it or leave it.
But, look, you put red flag laws in here, knowing the red flag laws,
the way we have now outsourced them to States and that we have now
started paying the States, giving them money to adopt red flag laws
whose distinguishing characteristic is to take away someone's
constitutionally protected right without due process of law--that is a
problem. And when you add to that complexity by adding uncertainty
about the juvenile records problem that I identified, which ought to be
concerning to many liberals as well as many conservatives, and when you
add to that by coming up with this vague, broad definition of ``dating
relationship,'' it has huge consequences with no reasonable ability to
understand and ascertain how certain court proceedings might affect
someone's rights, perhaps for the rest of their life, that is a
problem.
It doesn't have to be this way. I look forward to the day when the
Senate will operate the way that it was designed to, the way that it
once did, the way that, in fact, it has operated in the not-too-distant
past. But we have to demand it. As long as people continue to tolerate,
continue to accept and condone and reward and encourage this type of
sham process, we will be left with subpar legislation, sloppily
written.
I will conclude with the words, once again, of Professor Leider, who
says it well.

The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act will likely pass
because members of Congress feel enormous pressure to do
something. But it is not a good bill, and it deserves further
deliberation and refinement. The Senate's job is to help
draft good laws by cooling the passions of the moment. Right
now, it is failing.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

(By Robert Leider)

``When mass shootings such as Uvalde happen, a rallying cry
emerges for Congress to do something--anything--to prevent
such tragedies in the future. On Tuesday senators introduced
the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act--their effort to do
something. But when your sole rallying cry is to do
something, the thing you do may be worse than the status quo.
The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act is a terrible bill, and
in its current form, it ought to be defeated by a bipartisan
political coalition of Congress.
Liberals should hate the bill because most of its gun-
control provisions are antithetical to their criminal-justice
reform agenda. The law expands the categories of those to
whom it is unlawful to sell a gun or ammunition to include
anyone convicted of a felony as a juvenile. This will ensnare
many because the modern definition of a ``felony'' is
exceptionally broad and includes offenses that aren't
particularly serious. The bill also changes the federal
prohibition on selling firearms to those who have been
involuntarily committed to a mental institution. While it
excludes involuntary commitments before age 16, the bill
significantly strengthens the enforcement of the prohibition
against those involuntarily committed between 16 and 18.
We should be cautious before we make it impossible for
children to live normal adult lives. As liberals often point
out (particularly when the death penalty is involved),
children and teenagers lack maturity and impulse control. If
this bill becomes law, a 12-year-old who joyrides in a car
may find that he may never be allowed to purchase a gun or
ammunition. Although liberals may not cry at the thought of
fewer people being able to own guns, they should be
concerned. A gun ban for youthful indiscretions means that
these juveniles will become unemployable as adults in many
security, law-enforcement and military positions that require
firearm possession. And this ban will affect them no matter
how much time has passed since their juvenile convictions.
The gun ban would have significant racial and socioeconomic
disparities. Wealthy communities will find ways around the
gun ban for their children: having robust pretrial diversion
programs that don't result in technical convictions,
accessing pardons through the political process, and hiring
lawyers to

[[Page S3132]]

expunge convictions. In poorer communities, children will
simply be forced to take pleas that will forever alter their
futures. The same goes on the mental-health side: Wealthy
parents can seek voluntary treatment for their children in
circumstances that may cause poorer families to seek
involuntary commitment. The bill also raises the maximum
prison term for unlawful firearm possession from 10 years to
15, and these regulatory offenses--as liberals often
complain--disproportionately affect poor and minority
communities.
Conservatives and gun owners should hate the bill, too. Gun
owners who have committed juvenile indiscretions will find
that they are no longer able to purchase firearms or
ammunition. The bill also has strange technical defects. It
prohibits the sale of guns and ammunition to those convicted
of juvenile offenses, but it doesn't explicitly ban
possession--a loophole that someone will clamor to close
later. For adults who had involuntary commitments before they
were 16, the reverse is true:
The bill allows firearms to be sold to them, but it doesn't
decriminalize their possession of a firearm.
The most significant provision in the bill is the
prohibition against firearm possession by those convicted of
a misdemeanor violent crime against a dating partner--closing
the ``boyfriend loophole.'' But the senators who negotiated
this bill evidently couldn't agree on the definition of a
dating partner. They define ``dating relationship'' as a
``relationship between individuals who have or have recently
had a continuing serious relationship of a romantic or
intimate nature.'' But relationships come in all forms, and
this definition provides little guidance. The senators
provided three criteria for consideration: (1) the length of
the relationship, (2) the nature of the relationship and (3)
the frequency and type of interaction between the people
involved in the relationship. This means that a ``continuing
serious relationship'' will be some function of quantity of
dates, length of time and physical intimacy. But these vague
factors don't provide fair notice and are susceptible to
inconsistent application.
By failing to define ``dating relationship'' adequately,
Congress is effectively delegating the critical question of
who falls within this ban. To whom it is delegating the hard
details remains to be determined. Perhaps it will be the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which
has regulatory authority over firearms. Or the courts may
decide as they resolve cases. Either way, Congress has yet
again handed off its responsibility for defining crimes to
unelected bureaucrats and judges.
Until a specific definition exists, it is unclear how the
federal government will implement this prohibition. Suppose a
criminal-records check indicates that a potential purchaser
has committed assault or battery. What next? Maybe the trial
record will show that the defendant was in a relationship
with the complaining witness. Or maybe it won't. If such
information is available, how is the examiner supposed to
gauge the relationship? The available records likely won't
provide the precise details of the relationship. Even if they
do, the examiner still has to decide whether the relationship
was serious enough to trigger the gun disability. The Senate
compromise feeds many prospective gun owners to the
bureaucratic wolves.
The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act will likely pass
because members of Congress feel enormous pressure to do
something. But it is not a good bill, and it deserves further
deliberation and refinement. The Senate's job is to help
draft good laws by cooling the passions of the moment. Right
now, it is failing.''

Mr. LEE. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaine). The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the pending business
on the floor.
The Presiding Officer and I both arrived in the Senate at the same
time 10 years ago. When you and I had barely been here a few days, the
country was shocked with a tragic shooting, the Sandy Hook shooting in
Newtown, CT, when a deranged monster came in and murdered little
children--elementary school children. Everyone across the country was
horrified; and over the past decade, we have seen that pattern repeat
itself over and over again.
Tragically, my home State of Texas has seen more than our fair share
of horrific crime, of mass murder, most recently in Uvalde. I was there
in Uvalde the day after the shooting where a deranged monster murdered
19 little children and 2 teachers.
Before that, I was in Santa Fe where yet another deranged monster
murdered schoolchildren.
I was in Sutherland Springs, the worst church shooting in U.S.
history. I stood in that sanctuary the day after the shooting, a
beautiful, small country church. The pews had been flung aside in the
chaos. There was shattered glass. There was a cell phone with a
shattered screen covered in blood.
And I saw the pool of blood where an 18-month-old child was
systematically murdered by that psychopath. I was in El Paso; I was in
Midland-Odessa; I was in Dallas. Over and over again, we have seen the
face of evil. We have seen horrific crimes. And let me be the first to
say there are too damn many of these. And we need to stop them.
Unfortunately, I have also seen what inevitably follows these
horrific crimes, which is a political debate that breaks out within
seconds of the crime occurring.
There are two principal approaches one can take to try to prevent
crimes like this. One is to target the bad guys, to focus on criminals,
to focus on felons, to focus on fugitives, to focus on those trying to
illegally buy guns, to put them in jail, to lock them up, to get them
off the street so that they cannot terrorize and murder innocent
people. That is the approach that actually works. That is the approach
that is actually successful. That is the approach that is most likely
to prevent subsequent mass murders.
There is a second approach, which is an approach that is disarming
law-abiding citizens. Inevitably, Democratic members of this Chamber,
minutes after an attack, move towards wanting to disarm law-abiding
citizens. That approach is, I believe, No. 1, unconstitutional; but,
No. 2, it doesn't work. It is ineffective.
Put simply, taking guns away from law-abiding citizens--disarming you
or disarming me--is not going to stop a mass murder. And we know this.
If you look across the country consistently, the jurisdictions with the
strictest gun control laws over and over again have among the highest
crime rates and among the highest murder rates.
When you disarm law-abiding citizens, what happens is the people who
follow the law disarm. That is almost by definition if they are law-
abiding citizens. But the criminals don't follow the laws.
And if you disarm all the victims, the result is it is easier for the
criminals to commit their acts of mayhem.
Let me point out a statistic that many Americans don't know. It is a
statistic that comes from the Barack Obama White House, so it is hardly
a rightwing source. According to the Barack Obama White House, every
year in America, firearms are used defensively to stop a crime between
500,000 and 1 million times each and every year.
What does that mean? That means that if Democratic proposals to
disarm law-abiding citizens succeed, the result will be even more
crimes. The result will be those 500,000 to a million crimes that are
right now stopped every year won't be stopped.
That means more assaults. That means more sexual assaults. That means
more murders. That means single moms riding home on the train, if they
are not able to have a revolver in their purse to defend themselves
from marauding criminals, then they are left defenseless.

In debates over how to approach violent crime, that 500,000 to a
million people each year who are using a firearm to stop a crime, they
get left out of a lot of these discussions. But they would be victims
if Democratic Senators succeed in taking away their right to keep and
bear arms.
When the Presiding Officer and I were brand new here in the wake of
Newtown, CT, there was a Democrat majority in this body at the time.
Harry Reid was the majority leader. Barack Obama had just been
reelected President. And you will recall well Senate Democrats were
exultant. Senator Schumer was on TV saying we were in the sweet spot to
finally pass far-reaching gun control.
And I will tell you the colleagues on my side of the aisle were
discouraged and demoralized, and many thought there was nothing we
could do to stop the agenda that was being pushed forward.
Well, I can tell you, I didn't believe it then, and I don't believe
it now. And so I sat down and drafted legislation designed to actually
do what every person in this Chamber, I believe, really wants to do,
which is stop violent crime, stop these murders, stop the next lunatic
who would shoot up a school or shoot up a church or shoot up a mall or
shoot up a grocery store.
The legislation I drafted was called Grassley-Cruz. I teamed up with
my colleague, the senior Senator from Iowa, Chuck Grassley. Grassley-
Cruz focused on several things. First of all,

[[Page S3133]]

it focused on strengthening the background check system. It required
the Department of Justice to conduct an audit of every Federal agency
to make sure that any felony convictions are reported to the background
check system.
It provided funding and incentives for States to report felony
convictions to the background check system. Interestingly, many States
have a lousy record of reporting felonies to the background check
database. Ironically, many of those are blue States led by Democrats
who talk about gun control, and yet the State governments and local
governments often fail to report felony convictions to the database.
Grassley-Cruz provided strong incentives to get those felony
convictions in the database. Secondly, Grassley-Cruz provided funding
for prosecutors to prosecute those who commit violent crimes with
firearms and put them in jail.
Third, Grassley-Cruz provided funding for the Department of Justice
to create a gun crime task force to prosecute felons and fugitives who
try to illegally buy guns.
Many people don't know this, but it is actually quite shocking. The
Department of Justice has a consistent pattern of refusing to prosecute
felons and fugitives who illegally try to buy guns.
In the year 2010, roughly 48,000 felons and fugitives tried to
illegally purchase firearms. Of those 48,000, the Obama Justice
Department prosecuted 44 of them--not even 50--44 out of 48,000. I
think that is completely unacceptable.
So Grassley-Cruz provided funding and directed the Department of
Justice: Prosecute them and put them in jail. And on top of that,
Grassley-Cruz created grants for schools to enhance school safety, to
enhance security, to make our schools and make our kids safer.
So what happened? Well, Grassley-Cruz, we voted on it here on the
floor of the Senate. And Grassley-Cruz received a majority vote on the
Senate floor, 52 Senators voted in favor of Grassley-Cruz, including
nine Democrats. Remember, this was a Democrat Senate. Democrats had a
sizable majority, and yet nine Democrats--we got the most bipartisan
support of any of the comprehensive legislation that was considered on
the floor.
So why didn't Grassley-Cruz pass into law? We got a majority vote in
the Senate. Well, the answer is simple: Grassley-Cruz didn't pass
because Senate Democrats filibustered it. They demanded 60 votes; and
so even though it got a majority, it didn't get 60, and it didn't pass.
I am going to share something that is deeply frustrating.
There is a powerful argument that had Grassley-Cruz passed, had
Senate Democrats not filibustered it, that multiple of these mass
shootings in Texas could have been prevented.
Let's start with Sutherland Springs. Sutherland Springs should never
have happened. The shooter was doubly ineligible to buy a firearm. He
had a felony conviction. He had a domestic conviction. So under Federal
law, existing Federal law, it was illegal for him to buy a gun.
So how did he get his gun?
Well, the Air Force, in the Obama administration, failed to report
his felony conviction to the background check database. It wasn't in
there.
So the shooter went to buy a gun. He filled out the background check
form, and he lied. He lied on the form. The form asked: Do you have a
felony conviction? He said: No.
The form asked: Do you have a domestic violence conviction? He said:
No.
They ran the check, and it came up clean because the Obama Air Force
never reported the felony and so it wasn't in the database and so it
came up clean.
He bought that gun, and he used it to murder those innocent people in
that beautiful sanctuary.
If Grassley-Cruz had passed, presumably, the mandated Department of
Justice audit of every Federal Agency would have caught that felony
conviction. The whole purpose of the audit was to make sure we catch
every felony conviction that is out there, which would have meant his
conviction would have been in the database, but that is where the
second part of Grassley-Cruz matters because when he went in and lied
on that form, he committed two more felonies. When he checked ``I don't
have a felony conviction,'' that is the felony. Lying on that form is a
felony. It is a crime.
When he checked ``I don't have a domestic violence conviction,'' that
is the felony. And Grassley-Cruz would have directed the Department of
Justice: Prosecute him, and put him in jail. And that monster would
have been locked in a 6-by-8 concrete cell instead of murdering
innocent people in the wonderful community of Sutherland Springs.
You also look at Santa Fe and Uvalde, and there is a possibility that
both of those crimes could have been prevented by Grassley-Cruz.
Part of Grassley-Cruz was funding to enhance school security--grants
to go to schools. One of the things that is frustrating about these
school shootings is they follow predictable patterns.
In Parkland, FL, the shooter jumped over a fence and came inside. In
Santa Fe, the shooter went in an unlocked side entrance.
Afterward--you know, the Santa Fe High School is less than an hour
from my house. I was at home that morning, the morning of the shooting.
I was on that campus about an hour after the shooting occurred. It was
horrific. It was tragic. I grieved and cried with the parents who lost
their children that day.
I remember sitting down afterward at a roundtable with the parents
from Santa Fe and parents from other mass shootings that occurred and
talking about what are the solutions we can do. How can we prevent
this?
One of the solutions we discussed was best practices. How do you make
a school safer? One of those best practices is limiting the number of
entrances to a school--ideally, bringing it down to one single main
entrance, the front entrance.
Now, that doesn't mean, as some on the Twittersphere have said, that
you have no fire exits. Of course, you have fire exits. It means you do
what we do in many other places--in Federal buildings, in banks, in
courthouses. It is a standard security step to have one major entrance
to a building if that building is at risk of violence, and that one
main entrance is then much, much safer if you have armed police
officers at that entrance.
When you go into a bank, there is a reason you see an armed officer
at the entrance. When you go into a courthouse, there is a reason you
see an armed officer at the entrance. When you go into the U.S.
Capitol, there is a reason you see an armed officer at the entrance.
Our kids are at least as valuable.

If the Santa Fe High School or the Robb Elementary School had been
able to get a school funding grant to enhance security, those crimes
could have been prevented because, I will tell you, when I was in
Uvalde the day after the shooting, what was so infuriating is that
monster got in the exact same way--through an open back door. Just like
in Santa Fe, he got in through an open back door; he got into the
classroom; and he began murdering children long before he encountered
anyone from law enforcement.
If, instead, that door had been locked, if he had been forced to come
around to the front main entrance, if at the front main entrance there
were armed police officers, they could have shot that monster dead
outside, and 19 children and 2 teachers would still be alive.
So, like millions across this country, I am angry. I am angry that
these horrific crimes keep happening.
But I am also angry that this august Chamber plays political games.
The bill that is before this body is being heralded in the press as a
bipartisan bill because it has got every Democrat and some Republicans.
I think the chances that this bill will do anything meaningful to
actually prevent the next mass murder are very low. That is not what
this bill is designed to do.
This bill is designed, among other things, to satiate the urge to do
something. After every one of these, the call comes out: Do something.
I agree. Do something. But do something that works. Do something that
will stop these crimes. This bill ain't that.
But it does have provisions that are troubling. It does have
provisions that

[[Page S3134]]

satisfy the Democratic political priority to go after the Second
Amendment right to keep and bear arms of law-abiding citizens.
Most troubling in this bill is the funding of so-called red flag
laws. Now, these so-called red flag laws have been implemented in
multiple States, and they enable the State to take away the right to
keep and bear arms from law-abiding citizens.
They render you vulnerable; that if you have a disgruntled coworker,
if you have an angry ex-boyfriend, an angry ex-girlfriend, they can go
and give the State the power to strip you of the right to keep and bear
arms--not if you are a criminal, not if you have committed crimes, not
if you have been adjudicated to be a danger to yourself or others. All
of those are existing law. Red flag laws lower the threshold and make
it easier to take away your right to defend yourself.
And in too many of these States, these provisions have little to no
protections of due process.
If the Senate passes this bill, Federal dollars will be used to
encourage more States to enact laws like this. That means Federal tax
dollars will be used to implement programs that will strip away
Americans' constitutional rights.
And mark my words, people will lose their lives over this; that we
will see red flag laws that are abused and citizens who are disarmed--
and, tragically, we are going to see a citizen who is disarmed who is
subsequently murdered.
Look, the right to keep and bear arms--it is not about hunting. It is
not about skeet shooting. Those can be a lot of fun to do, but that is
not why it is in the Constitution. The Bill of Rights does not have an
amendment devoted to recreational shooting.
The reason the Second Amendment is in the Bill of Rights is because
you and I and every American have a God-given right to defend our life.
There is no right more fundamental than the right to defend your own
life and the right to defend your family. If a criminal comes into your
house at night seeking to do harm to your children, you and I have a
right, I believe that derives from God Almighty, to defend our kids,
and whether any individual Member of this Chamber agrees with that
right or not doesn't really matter because it is right there in the
Bill of Rights. So the Constitution protects it whether you agree with
it or not.

And the reason I say these red flag laws, we are going to see people
lose their lives over it, is because often when people go and buy a
firearm, it is because they are afraid. It is because maybe they have
got an angry ex-boyfriend, an angry ex-girlfriend. Maybe they have got
a neighbor whom they are scared of. Maybe they have got someone
threatening them. And we are going to see these laws abused to disarm
someone who is subsequently made the victim of a violent crime.
And none of the politicians in this Chamber who vote for this bill
will take any responsibility for the people's lives that will be lost
because of it.
You might say: Well, look, that is all fine and good, but if you
don't like this bill, what should we do?
Well, it so happens I have an answer to that. This week, I filed
legislation, along with Senator John Barrasso from Wyoming. The Cruz-
Barrasso legislation builds on what already received a majority vote in
this Chamber, the Grassley-Cruz legislation of a decade ago.
Let me tell you what Cruz-Barrasso does. It focuses on actually
stopping this problem. So Cruz-Barrasso funds the Department of Justice
to prosecute violent criminals who use firearms.
Mr. President, you are from the Commonwealth of Virginia, a wonderful
State. As you know well, some of the most important work stopping
violent crime and gun crime was pioneered in the Commonwealth of
Virginia. During the Bill Clinton Presidency, an initiative was started
called Project Exile in the Western District of Virginia. The U.S.
attorney there laid out a policy that if anyone commits a crime with a
firearm who is illegally possessing that firearm, meaning likely they
are a felon in possession, that the Feds were going to prosecute them,
put them in jail, and they are going to face mandatory minimum crimes.
And the U.S. attorney passed out to local prosecutors laminated cards
saying: Here are all the Federal prohibitions on gun possession. They
put up ads. They put up billboards in Richmond, VA. Richmond tragically
had an incredibly high murder rate. They put up billboards: Carry a
gun, do hard time.
And Project Exile worked phenomenally. The murder rate in Richmond,
VA, plummeted, and we began hearing stories of criminals--criminals who
would come to knock off a liquor store, criminals who would come to do
a home burglary, who would leave their gun at home. They would say: Do
you know what? Look, if I break into this house and I have got a gun
with me, I am doing hard time in Federal prison. I think I will just go
there without a gun. It worked.
What does Cruz-Barrasso do? It takes Project Exile national. It
provides funding for U.S. attorneys to prosecute. If you commit a crime
and you have got a gun, you are off the streets.
You want to stop these crimes? That is the step that will stop these
crimes.
What else does Cruz-Barrasso do? It creates a gun crime task force at
the Department of Justice to prosecute the felons and fugitives year
after year after year who try to illegally buy a gun and whom DOJ won't
prosecute right now.
If Cruz-Barrasso passes, the next Sutherland Springs can be stopped.
You know, there are some Democrat officials who say: We don't have
time to prosecute people who try to illegally buy guns. I repeatedly
heard testimony from Democratic witnesses on the Judiciary Committee
saying that.
Let me tell you something right now. If a murderer or a felon is
trying to illegally buy a gun, I don't think that is a paperwork
offense; I think they should be prosecuted and put in jail.
What else does Cruz-Barrasso do? It provides major funding to make
our schools safer. It provides much more funding than the Democrats'
bill. All told, there is $36 billion in this bill.
It provides funding to double the number of police officers in
schools across America--to double them. If you want to keep kids safe,
the single best step you can do is have police officers on campus so
that our children have the same protection that Members of Congress do;
so that our children have the same protection that courthouses do; so
that our children have the same protection that banks do.
Cruz-Barrasso will double the number of police officers in schools
across America--not only that, let's talk mental health. We all know
there is a problem. These deranged shooters over and over again follow
similar patterns of being isolated, angry loners with a long pattern of
struggling with mental health, often making multiple threats before
they carry out a horrific crime.
Cruz-Barrasso provides $10 billion in funding for mental health
counselors in schools across the country to help identify troubled
youth and to stop them before they commit a crime like this.
(Mr. OSSOFF assumed the Chair.)
Now, earlier today, there had been discussion that Majority Leader
Schumer would schedule a vote on Cruz-Barrasso. Right now, it appears
that may not happen. We are going to vote one way or another, and if I
have to exercise the procedural avenues available to me as a Senator to
force that vote, I am more than happy to do so. But let me tell you
actually why we are not seeing the vote so far--because my amendment is
drafted as a substitute. In other words, it would replace the pending
bill on the floor, and an awful lot of Senators don't want to have to
vote on that.
Now, I challenge any Senator in this Chamber to try to make the case
that this Democrat bill on the floor would be even half as effective in
stopping violent crime, in stopping mass shootings, in stopping
criminals from murdering children in schools, as my legislation would
be. The Democrat bill has a fraction of the funding for police
officers. It has a fraction of the funding for mental health. The
Democrat bill doesn't provide that violent felons who use guns should
be prosecuted. The Democrat bill doesn't provide that people who
illegally try to buy firearms, who are felons and fugitives, should be
prosecuted. The Democrat bill is not focused on criminals. It is not
focused on bad guys. It is focused on the Democrat priority of
disarming law-abiding citizens. That is a political priority that too
many Senate Democrats value more than keeping kids safe.
So if we don't see a straight-up vote on my amendment, it is because
too

[[Page S3135]]

many Senators in this Chamber don't want to vote on a head-to-head
choice between actually keeping kids safe versus achieving the
political agenda of the left of disarming law-abiding citizens. That is
wrong. It is cynical.
I have to say that in these debates--listen, this is a topic that is
emotional. It is a topic that is personal. It is a topic where
inevitably the rhetoric gets overheated. It gets overheated on both
sides.
Some years ago, I found myself, curiously enough, in a Twitter debate
with Alyssa Milano, the actress from Hollywood, the leftwing activist,
over the question of guns. We began going back and forth over gun
control and the Second Amendment, and at some point, she said something
to the effect of, you wouldn't dare sit down and have this conversation
with me in person. I said: Of course I would. I invited her to come to
my office, and she did. She came to my office, and what proceeded is we
had a 90-minute discussion and debate about violent crime, about gun
control, and about the Second Amendment. We live-streamed it, so anyone
who wants to see it can go and watch a 90-minute discussion. I will
say, I commend Ms. Milano. I think the two of us managed to have a much
more civil conversation on this than most of the interlocutors on this
topic.
One of the things I said to her at the start of that discussion was,
I said: Listen, if we start from the premise--if we sit in this room
and look at each other and we both assume the other is evil, the other
is lying, the other seeks to do harm, we are not going to have a very
productive conversation. If each of us thinks of the other ``You want
children to die; you want people to be murdered,'' you know what, that
is not going to lead to a very productive conversation.
I suggested to her--I said: Why don't we start from the proposition
that you and I both would like to see innocent people protected and
safe; that you and I both, like anyone sane and rational, are utterly
horrified at the depraved monsters who murder innocent people and
especially those who murder children?
There is a special circle of Hell for the people who hurt kids.
If we start from the premise that even though we are of different
political parties and even though we may believe different things
politically, we both want to see human life preserved, then maybe we
can have a productive discussion about what steps can be taken to be
most effective in saving human life.
We agreed that we both want to prevent future murders, that we both
want to protect our kids and your kids and kids across America. Then we
can have a real discussion that is factual, that is empirical, that is
based on evidence, that is based on data, as to what policies are
actually effective in stopping violent crime.
There was a time when this august Chamber had discussions like that,
had debates.
I would note, this particular bill--there have been no committee
hearings on it. There has been no meaningful debate. This is an
exercise of partisan power and political objectives.
So we are not engaged in a meaningful discussion of what policies are
actually effective in stopping crime, preventing mass murder, and
protecting children. If we were, I would challenge any Democrat in the
Chamber to stand up and explain how on Earth this Democrat bill could
be even half as effective in preventing school shootings as the Cruz-
Barrasso bill. By any measure, the legislation that I am fighting for
is stronger, it will put more violent gun criminals in jail, and it
will double the number of police officers in schools across America. It
will make our children safer.
If we were willing to have a discussion about substance, about the
merits, that should be a pretty easy discussion, but, sadly, too many
in this body immediately play politics and also give in to the
overheated rhetoric on this issue.
Those who advocate gun control inevitably say: If you support the
Second Amendment, blood is on your hands.
Well, let me tell you something: If you oppose the Second Amendment
and you disarm people who become victims of violent crime, blood is on
your hands.
Rather than either of us saying language like that, it seems to me we
should come together and say: How do we stop the bad guys? What works?
What is effective? What can we do together to make sure to maximize the
chances that we prevent another Uvalde, another Santa Fe, another
Sutherland Springs, another El Paso, another Midland-Odessa, another
Dallas?
The stakes are too serious for political games.
The Presiding Officer wasn't serving in this body 10 years ago when
we voted on Grassley-Cruz, but at the time, nine Democrats voted for
it. It received the most bipartisan support of any of the comprehensive
legislation before this body. It got a majority vote in the Harry Reid
Democrat Senate, where the Democrats had a substantial majority.
I would urge you, Mr. President, and every other Democrat to
demonstrate the same principle and the same courage that those nine
Democrats did a decade ago.
Let's vote for legislation that will actually solve the problem, that
will actually stop violent criminals, and that will actually keep our
kids safe. Let's resist the political urge to try to attack and
undermine the Second Amendment, to try to disarm law-abiding citizens.
I can tell you, as long as I am serving in this body, I will fight
with every breath I can to defend the constitutional right to keep and
bear arms of every American. It is in the Bill of Rights. It is a
foundational right.
We can do both. We can stop criminals and protect the Second
Amendment. This bill on the floor, the Democrat bill, does not. So I
urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass Cruz-Barrasso and
abandon the Democrat legislation that doesn't stop violent crime but
does infringe on the Second Amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the
Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.
Once again, our Nation has been horrified by mass shootings, this
time of shoppers killed in Buffalo, NY, and of schoolchildren and
teachers murdered in Texas.
Twelve of us have come together to develop the bipartisan proposal
before us to help address the gun violence that is plaguing our
country. We were led by Senators Chris Murphy, John Cornyn, Kyrsten
Sinema, and Thom Tillis. I want to thank and recognize each of them for
their efforts.
Our commonsense plan increases needed mental health resources,
improves school safety and support for students, and helps ensure that
dangerous criminals and those who are adjudicated as suffering from
mental illness cannot purchase firearms. If enacted, our bill will save
lives. At the same time, it steadfastly protects the Second Amendment
rights of law-abiding gun owners. It is not hyperbole to say that this
legislation represents the most significant gun safety legislation in
decades.
I would like to highlight two specific provisions of this bill that I
worked on and that will have a significant impact in Maine and across
the country.
First, our bill will fund crisis intervention programs, like Maine's
yellow flag law, which our State supreme court just upheld as
constitutional this very week.
Maine's law, which has robust due-process protections, allows the
court--following an assessment by a medical professional--to determine
if individuals should temporarily lose possession of firearms because
they pose a serious threat to themselves or to others. Maine's law was
developed in consultation with the Sportsman Alliance of Maine, and it
has likely saved lives.
This Federal legislation will provide Maine with more resources to
fully implement this important program. It will help connect law
enforcement, medical professionals, and people in crisis through
telehealth services, as well as provide additional financial help to
ensure that the law can be efficiently and effectively utilized when
necessary.
Second, our bill will also help keep guns out of the hands of
dangerous criminals. The bipartisan package includes the Stop Illegal
Trafficking and

[[Page S3136]]

Firearms Act that I coauthored with Senator Patrick Leahy. It cracks
down on straw purchasing and firearms trafficking.
I would like, particularly, to thank Senator Heinrich, with whom I
worked to further refine this proposal so that it could be included in
this bipartisan package. Senator Heinrich was a wonderful partner as we
worked through all of the details of this provision.
The trafficking of firearms to violent criminals, gangs, and drug
trafficking groups presents a serious threat to public safety in
communities across America. Straw purchasers--individuals who purchase
guns for other people who are prohibited by law from receiving such
weapons--are the linchpin of most firearms trafficking operations,
which are responsible for funneling firearms into our cities and across
our southern border.
Currently, there is no criminal statute specifically prohibiting
straw purchasing or firearms trafficking in the way that we need it to
do. Instead, prosecutors rely primarily on paperwork violations that
prohibit making false statements in connection with the purchase of a
firearm.
Our bill establishes new, specific criminal offenses with significant
penalties for straw purchasers and firearms traffickers, along with
enhanced penalties when straw-purchased firearms are used in connection
with serious criminal activity like terrorism or drug trafficking.
The danger presented by straw purchasers and firearms trafficking is
not abstract. It is not theoretical. It is very real--a real and
present danger.
Maine's U.S. attorney, Darcie McElwee, recently described how gun and
drug trafficking in our State and elsewhere are often intertwined.
``Individuals would come to Maine for guns and leave us their drugs and
go back,'' she explained. She added that in recent years, guns acquired
in Maine represented ``7% of Massachusetts gun recoveries at crime
scenes,'' while Massachusetts guns ``were responsible for 20% of ours.
So, that means that both their guns and their drugs are coming into our
state.'' I am quoting our new U.S. attorney.
In a recent example of gun and drug trafficking along the I-95
pipeline, a Massachusetts man was sentenced to 7 years in prison after
receiving two pistols from a straw purchaser in Androscoggin County,
while facilitating fentanyl sales in Bangor. What we have seen are gang
members from Connecticut coming to Maine with heroin and swapping
heroin for guns.
Gun trafficking is also a border security issue. Law enforcement has
long been concerned about the flow of firearms from the United States
into Mexico.
According to a recent report, more than 70 percent of all crime guns
recovered and traced to Mexico between 2009 and 2014--and that
represents more than 73,000 firearms--were traced back to the United
States. And the Mexican Government has estimated that 200,000 firearms
are smuggled from the United States into Mexico each year.
Our bill provides additional tools to law enforcement and prosecutors
to prevent and prosecute these crimes. This is meaningful legislation
that reflects input from gun safety advocates, gun rights groups, the
U.S. Department of Justice, law enforcement officers, and others. Thus,
in addition to helping keep our schools safe and our communities safer,
this bill will help to address the gun violence and drug problems that
are plaguing our communities, more generally.
Mr. President, I come from a State with a strong heritage of
responsible gun ownership. This package reflects conversations that I
have had with the Sportsman's Alliance of Maine, the National Shooting
Sports Foundation, and other responsible groups. It is worth my
emphasizing one more time that we are able to make these significant
improvements without infringing on the rights of law-abiding gun
owners.
Finally, it is important to note that this package demonstrates that
Members of the Senate can come together and work in a constructive way
to get important goals achieved on behalf of the American people. I
urge my Senate colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.
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. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor tonight sharing the
concerns of every Member of this body, to find the best way to protect
children who go to school, so that children can go to school in safety
and parents can send their children to school feeling that the children
will be safe.
And after we have seen the tragedies across the country, I think
every Member is here trying to find the best solution, and I think that
the one that Senator Cruz and I have offered is one that will provide
the kind of safety and security for our kids, for our schools, and for
our communities; and that is why we have introduced this substitute
amendment that we are bringing to the floor this evening in an effort
to do just that. We bring this at a time when the Nation's attention is
focused on what has happened at schools and communities across the
country and how to best address it.
And as a physician, a doctor who served in a State legislature and
now in this body, I have seen the devastating impact of mental health
challenges and problems in families and how much that has contributed
to what we have seen with these terrible acts. So what we bring here
tonight is legislation focused on safe schools and mental health while
protecting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.
And, with that, I would turn to Senator Cruz to make a motion to that
effect.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, this body has a choice before it: Do we pass
legislation that will be ineffective in stopping violent crime, that
has very little prospect of preventing the next mass shooting, that
will do very little to make schools safer but, at the same time, will
undermine the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens? That is
the Democrat bill that is currently on the floor.
Or do we, instead, move to pass real legislation that will stop
violent crime, that will put gun criminals in jail, that will prosecute
felons and fugitives who try to illegally buy guns, and that will
provide serious funding for school safety?
The Cruz-Barrasso legislation provides funding to double the number
of police officers in schools across America so our kids can be kept
safe--$36 billion total in funding, repurposed from unspent Democrat
emergency funds. This bill also provides $10 billion in funding for
mental health counselors in schools to stop troubled teens before they
go down a horrible road.
The Democrat bill has much smaller funding for cops and schools, much
smaller funding for mental health, but much more infringement of the
Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.
So it is a choice all of us have: Do we want to stop these crimes, or
do we want to play politics?
And I would note, Mr. President, that the proponents of this bill at
the outset swore up and down: There will be amendments. We will have
amendments on this bill.
Well, right now, the majority leader wants no amendments. And how do
we know that? Because the majority leader has filled the amendment
tree, has blocked amendments.
This morning, the majority leader was saying that he would allow a
vote on Cruz-Barrasso, a straight-up vote. But, for whatever reason,
that has changed; and so, right now, amendments are blocked. But,
fortunately, it is the right of any Senator to move to table that
blocking amendment, and that is what I will do momentarily. And the
reason I am moving to table this blocking amendment is to take up Cruz-
Barrasso.
And so this vote is a straight-up vote: Do you support serious law
enforcement? Do you support prosecuting violent criminals who use guns
in their crimes? Do you support prosecuting and sending to jail felons
and fugitives and those with serious mental illness who try to
illegally buy firearms? And do you support getting serious about

[[Page S3137]]

protecting our schools? Do you support doubling the number of cops in
our schools so that our kids are safe? Do you support funding mental
health counselors so our kids are safe?
This is an opportunity for every Senator to decide if they support
doing something that actually fixes the problem or if they put a higher
priority on partisan politics. On the merits, this vote should be 100
to 0. We will see what the vote is in reality.

Motion to Table

Mr. President, accordingly, I move to table amendment No. 5100, and I
ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton), and
the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Arkansas (Mr.
Cotton) would have voted ``Yea.''
The result was announced--yeas 39, nays 58, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 241 Leg.]

YEAS--39

Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Braun
Capito
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
Moran
Paul
Portman
Risch
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young

NAYS--58

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lujan
Manchin
Markey
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Romney
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Tillis
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--3

Blunt
Cotton
Cramer
The motion was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.

____________________