SAFE COMMUNITIES, SAFE SCHOOLS ACT OF 2013--MOTION TO PROCEED; Congressional Record Vol. 159, No. 48
(Senate - April 11, 2013)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.


[Pages S2572-S2581]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     SAFE COMMUNITIES, SAFE SCHOOLS ACT OF 2013--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 649, 
which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 32, S. 649, a bill to 
     ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from 
     buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal 
     background check system and require a background check for 
     every firearm sale, and for other purposes.


[[Page S2573]]


  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until 11 a.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two 
leaders or their designees, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 
10 minutes each.
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, we are on the verge of a historic vote 
that will determine whether we make America safer and assure that we do 
everything possible as Senators and citizens to ensure there are no 
more Newtowns.
  On the evening of December 14, when we left the firehouse at Sandy 
Hook, there was a vigil at a church in Newtown, St. Rose of Lima, 
presided over by Father Bob, who is Monsignor Robert Weiss. It was a 
very moving and powerful experience. The church was filled. People 
stood at the windows to hear what was going on.
  The Governor spoke and so did I. I said that evening: The world is 
watching Newtown. And, in fact, the world was watching Newtown, as we 
knew from the horror of that afternoon, when many of us arrived at the 
church, and first at the firehouse, to see families emerging and 
learning for the first time that their children, their babies, would 
not be coming home that evening. It was an experience that will stay 
with me forever. The sights and sounds of that afternoon, filled with 
grief and pain, will never leave me.
  The world was watching Newtown that day and that evening and has 
watched Newtown and Connecticut in the days and months since, and I 
have been privileged to spend many hours and days and weeks and these 
past months with the families.
  The world has watched the families, and it has seen in them and in 
Newtown--a great community, a quintessential New England town--strength 
and courage that was as unimaginable as the horror of that day, 
strength and courage that represents what is good about America and 
what is strong and courageous about our Nation.
  The world has watched Newtown and the families of Newtown and it has 
watched Connecticut. Now the world is watching the Senate. It is 
watching the Senate to see whether democracy works. It sounds simple, 
but it is true. Will democracy work to reflect the majority of the 
United States of America, the majority of our people who say we need to 
do something about the guns. That is what the families said to me that 
day and in days since and what people in Connecticut and across the 
country have said to their Senators: We must do something about gun 
violence.
  I remember talking to one of the families that evening and saying: 
When you are ready, we ought to talk about what we can do in Congress 
to stop gun violence. She said to me: I am ready now.
  The Senate must be ready now to act. It must keep faith with those 
families and victims--as the world watches--with Benjamin Andrew 
Wheeler, age 6. His father David is here today, and Benjamin is here in 
spirit as we decide in the Senate whether we will move forward toward 
progress.
  Ana Grace Marquez-Greene, also age 6. Her mother Nelba is here today. 
Ana is with us in spirit.
  Dylan Hockley, age 6, whose mother Nicole is here, is also here in 
spirit.
  Daniel Barden, age 7. His mother Jackie and his father Mark are here.
  Jesse Lewis, age 6. His father Neil Heslin is here.
  Mary Sherlach, one of the six educators killed at Sandy Hook 
Elementary, whose husband Bill is here--Jesse and Mary are here with us 
too.
  We know compromise and action are possible because two of our 
colleagues have forged a bipartisan compromise that will enable us to 
come closer. It is imperfect. It is less than what I would have 
preferred in achieving universal background checks. It is a starting 
point. It is a step in the right direction, and it will help us achieve 
a larger bipartisan compromise because background checks are only one 
part of a comprehensive strategy that must include a ban on illegal 
trafficking, strengthening school safety, as well as mental health 
initiatives and a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. I 
will be privileged to spearhead that effort on high-capacity 
magazines--hopefully next week--after today's vote, along with 
colleagues such as Dianne Feinstein, Frank Lautenberg, and my 
colleague, Chris Murphy.
  Today, let us decide, as the world watches, there will be no more 
Newtowns. That is what the families want. That is what America wants. 
Let us resolve that we will make democracy work as we go beyond this 
first step and decide to proceed on a bill that also is imperfect but 
provides a starting point, provides a way forward, so we can make our 
communities safer.
  The families of Newtown have performed an extraordinary service for 
our Nation. Not only has the world watched and been inspired by their 
strength and courage, but they have turned the tide. They have visited 
with our colleagues and they have impacted this process more profoundly 
and more directly than any other single group. They have shown we can 
break the stranglehold of special interests and the NRA, that speaking 
truth to power still works. To them we owe a special thanks. To them, 
as a nation, we owe a debt of gratitude for the lives that will be 
saved, for the futures that will be given. Even if their children and 
their loved ones will not enjoy that future, they have given futures to 
countless Americans who will be saved from the scourge of gun violence.
  To them I say thank you. They are in this building, and their 
children, their loved ones, are with us in spirit as we take this 
historic step.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I am honored to be on the floor this 
morning to begin today's debate on this historic gun violence measure 
with my colleague Senator Blumenthal. I join with him in my awe of the 
Newtown families who are here this week. People have watched them on 
the news as they have gone from office to office and told the story of 
their loved ones. Nobody can paint a picture better as to why we need 
to act next week than the families of those people who lost their lives 
in Newtown.
  There are so many stories they can tell better than anyone else. They 
can tell the story of their lost first graders, but they can also tell 
the story of the five little boys and girls who escaped that morning, 
who escaped when the shooter went to reload and there was a brief 
period of time where some kids could run out of one of those first-
grade classrooms.
  Better than anyone else, these families can posit as to whether their 
little boys and girls would still be alive if the shooter walked in 
with 10-round clips rather than 30-rounds clips, if he had to exchange 
magazines 15 times rather than 5 or 6 times. Nobody can tell that story 
better than these families.
  What I have tried to do over the course of the last couple days is to 
help these families tell the story of their loved ones but to also 
paint a broader picture to talk about the 30 lives every day that are 
ended by gun violence. I think we need to talk about the victims and 
allow for the voices of those victims to be part of the debate, because 
while the tragedy in Newtown has gotten the headlines and the 
highlights and is certainly the reason we are standing here today, more 
people than were killed in Newtown die every day in this country from 
gun violence--on the streets of Washington and Hartford and Bridgeport 
and Baltimore--all across the country.
  These victims need to be our imperative, whether they be the 6- and 
7-year-old kids and the teachers in Newtown or the 25-year-olds and 17-
year-olds who are dying every single day across our country. It has to 
end. The answer cannot be, as it has been for 20 years, that we are 
going to do nothing. So I wish to take a few minutes to continue 
telling these stories this morning.
  I wish to begin with Dylan Hockley. Dylan's mother has probably been 
one of the most articulate spokesmen for this cause. His parents Nicole 
and Ian have been amazing in their ability to grieve and also to come 
down to Washington and argue their cause.
  Dylan loved video games. He loved jumping on trampolines. He loved 
watching movies. He was autistic, but he was doing so much better. He 
was so proud of the fact that he had learned how to read, and he was 
taking out books every day from the library to bring home. His parents 
chose Sandy Hook Elementary School because of its great autism program.

[[Page S2574]]

  I spoke yesterday about his paraprofessional, his special education 
aid, who was so wonderful to assist him in doing better every single 
day. Because of his autism, he was a child who loved routine and 
repetition, and there were a few movies he would watch over and over 
and over again--``Up,'' ``WALL-E,'' ``The Gruffalo''--and he would find 
those portions of the movies he loved so much. He would sit in front of 
the TV with his headphones on rewinding those portions over and over 
and over again, and every single time he watched those movies, he would 
laugh over and over and over again.
  His parents have created an organization called Dylan's Wings of 
Change. It is a memorial fund to benefit children with autism. It is 
just one of a multitude of efforts that have flowed forth from this 
tragedy. Dylan's life was ended, but this fund is going to help make 
sure other kids like him have the chance to lead great, normal lives, 
even though they deal with complex problems such as autism.
  Mr. DURBIN. Would the Senator from Connecticut yield for a question?
  Mr. MURPHY. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I wish to commend the Senator from 
Connecticut, Mr. Murphy, as well as Senator Blumenthal. In the last 2 
days they have come to the floor many times leading the floor debate 
and discussion on the pending legislation we will vote on soon relative 
to guns and gun safety. It is appropriate that they are here because, 
being the Senators representing Newtown, CT, they have personal 
attachment to the families who have weathered this tragedy.
  This morning I met with those families in my office. Tears were shed, 
as you might expect. These families have lost little children like 
Dylan and so many others. It is a loss they will feel for a lifetime, 
but in their grief, they have come forward and shown extraordinary 
courage to walk through the corridors of power in Washington to bring a 
simple message: that they do not want this to happen to any other 
parent.
  I thank Senator Murphy and Senator Blumenthal for reminding us that 
we have the power, we have been given the power by the people we 
represent to make this a safer nation for families, for children, for 
schools, and for communities across the board. Soon we will have a 
vote. We are hoping--I think that is a positive hope--that enough on 
the other side of the aisle will step forward to defy the filibuster 
that has been threatened and bring this matter to the floor for a vote.
  I know Senator Murphy and Senator Blumenthal have come to the floor 
for the last day and a half and more to dramatize that issue. What I 
found interesting, and I would like to ask the Senator from Connecticut 
to comment on it, is the promise of this community. They gave me a list 
of things and said: This goes beyond guns and gun safety. I would ask 
the Senator if he could address this promise that came out of Newtown, 
CT, after the terrible tragedy on December 14.
  Mr. MURPHY. I thank the Senator for his career fighting on behalf of 
legislation that will address gun violence. The summation of all of 
that work hopefully will be with us this week and next week.
  I thank the Senator for his question about the Sandy Hook promise. 
The Sandy Hook promise, which has been signed by tens of thousands of 
people all across the country, came out of this tragedy because there 
was a recognition, as you said, that this was not a sprint, that this 
was a marathon, that the promise we needed to make to each other in the 
wake of this horrific tragedy was not just that we were going to do 
everything within our power, our individual powers to try to reduce the 
incidence of gun violence--and as Senator Durbin points out, we have 
more power, the 100 of us, than almost anyone else, and shame on us if 
we do not use it. But the Sandy Hook promise is that there are so many 
other things that you can do: that you can make smaller commitments in 
your communities to build bigger and better systems of mental health; 
that you can try to forge atmospheres in schools that are more 
inviting, that are more positive; that you can, frankly, just be nicer 
to your neighbors, you can be more thoughtful in your everyday 
interactions, knowing there could be some tragedy around the corner 
that takes your neighbor away from you; make sure you say everything 
you want to say to that person.
  So this promise--a promise to do everything within our power to try 
to make sure this never happens again, but to bring a new level of 
positivity to our world in the wake of this awful violence, is one of 
the most important things that come from it.
  We are so grateful that these families are here not just challenging 
us to pass specific pieces of legislation but also to make our lives 
change in the wake of this situation.
  Mr. DURBIN. I would like to ask if the Senator would yield for a 
further question through the Chair.
  One of the issues the Senator just raised is one I would like to have 
him expound on; that is, the issue of mental illness and mental health. 
I think this is something in my lifetime on which we have seen dramatic 
progress made, not just in the treatment of mental illness but in our 
attitude toward mental illness.
  There was a time in the history of this country and this world when 
mental illness was viewed not as an illness but a curse. The people who 
were afflicted by it were often shunned and institutionalized and 
treated very badly because it was considered to be something incurable 
and they had somehow been cursed. That was their plight on Earth. Thank 
goodness that has changed and we now have a more positive attitude 
toward dealing with mental illness.
  I might say I have read--I believe it is accurate--more than half the 
people in America suffer from some form of depression. It is very 
common in most families. It is treatable. Most mental illnesses are 
treatable. Most victims of mental health illness are people who are 
peaceful, God-fearing, loving people who need understanding and help. 
They are no threat to anyone. More often, they are the victims of 
violence rather than the perpetrators of violence.
  One person in the community of Newtown who stepped up and clearly was 
unstable and used those firearms on December 14 to kill innocent people 
has caused us to step back and take a look at the issue of mental 
illness as it relates to guns and firearms. I think what we are trying 
to do in this legislation is to say: If your mental illness has reached 
such an extreme, if you are so unstable or threatening that you need to 
be watched in terms of purchasing firearms, let's make sure the records 
are there.
  But I hope--I know the Senator agrees with this--I hope we will not 
allow this discussion to take us away from the beginning part: that 
treating mental illness and helping people is the right thing to do, 
not shunning them, not pushing them aside from the rest of the 
mainstream, but understanding that treatment of mental illness makes us 
a better people, gives them a better chance at life. It is that small, 
small minority of those suffering from these afflictions who need to be 
monitored in terms of the use and purchase of firearms.
  Mr. MURPHY. I thank the Senator for that comment. As he knows, there 
is absolutely nothing inherent in mental illness that creates a 
connection to violence. As the Senator said very correctly, people with 
mental illness are much more likely to be the victims of violence than 
to perpetrate a crime. The great irony coming out of this debate could 
be that if we make the awful mistake of equating violence with mental 
illness, than we will frankly make it harder for people to go out and 
seek treatment, not easier.
  Adam Lanza was a deeply disturbed individual. His mother made awful 
mistakes, but she was certainly trying to figure out a way to get him 
help. The fact is that there are far too many families out there who do 
not have places to turn for treatment. That is the right thing to do 
independent of this debate today. We should absolutely be talking about 
the comprehensive commitment to ending gun violence, but the reality is 
that today there are way too many families who hit brick walls in 
trying to find mental health treatment for children.
  If we were to go through this debate and somehow stereotype people 
with mental illness as prone to violence, then it would, frankly, 
create more barriers. There is a proposal out there from one of the gun 
lobby groups to

[[Page S2575]]

create a registry of everyone with mental illness across this country. 
It is an absolutely ludicrous idea, especially when this very same 
group opposes keeping a registry of everyone with guns in this country.
  I take the Senator's concerns to heart.
  This was a very serious incident in Newtown, but it should not cause 
us to take steps backward in terms of the support we give families who 
are looking for help for their loved ones.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the last point I would like to make is 
that included in the bill that came before us is not only an 
opportunity to change some of the circumstances that might have saved 
lives in Newtown but also to address some underlying issues of gun 
violence that is not resulting in a mass killing but the killing on a 
day-to-day basis of innocent people.
  A measure I have joined Senator Leahy, Senator Kirk, and Senator 
Collins in introducing relates to straw purchases. These are purchases 
by some individual who does not have a problem in their background that 
would disqualify them from buying a gun. They buy a gun and then turn 
it over to someone who has a problem. This straw purchase or third-
party purchase happens way too often.
  In the city of Chicago, where we are making progress toward reducing 
gun violence and murder, in a recent survey of the crime guns 
confiscated in the last 10 years, 9 percent of them in the city of 
Chicago came from the State of Mississippi. The State of Mississippi is 
not contiguous to Illinois. It is a long way away. But clearly someone 
had started an industry of buying guns easily in Mississippi and moving 
them up the interstate system all the way to Chicago and selling them 
to the gang bangers and the thugs and criminal elements in this city.
  Another 20 percent of the guns came from one gun shop outside the 
city of Chicago, in the suburbs. We know exactly where it is--it is in 
Riverdale, IL. That has become the venue of choice for girlfriends to 
go buy a gun for their boyfriends, who are going to use them to kill 
somebody. Well, the provision in the law we are going to try to bring 
to the floor in the base bill says that this will now be a stiff 
Federal crime--a hard-time Federal crime--to buy a gun that you knew or 
should have known was going to be used in the commission of a crime. So 
although it does not directly affect the circumstances of the tragedy 
in Newtown, it really does hold out promise to reduce some of the other 
deaths.
  Yesterday the Senator gave us a chart that showed how many have died 
from gun violence since December 14. It was a big chart with a lot of 
faces on it of people who had died. I thank the Senator for what he has 
done in terms of what has affected Newtown, but I also thank him for 
supporting this underlying legislation.
  I think this chart is now being shown here. I hope we keep in mind 
that gun safety and reducing gun violence means start with the 
massacres, the tragedies that have stricken us, but also go beyond that 
and find a way to make the streets safer for Hadiya Pendleton, a high 
school girl who came up from Chicago for the inauguration, could not 
have had a happier day, and then 10 days later was gunned down in a 
park next to her school in the city.
  So we want to make this a comprehensive and a balanced, commonsense 
approach to gun safety. I thank the Senator from Connecticut for that.
  Mr. MURPHY. I thank the majority whip. Just to add to his last 
comment, my constituents are amazed that we do not have a Federal law 
banning gun trafficking today. They are amazed that if you go into a 
store and buy guns legally and then walk outside that store and sell 
them to people who are prohibited, that you have not committed a 
Federal crime. There is an assumption that the Federal Government would 
disallow that. We have not. But hopefully at the end of this debate we 
will. I thank Senator Durbin for all of his fantastic work on that 
issue.
  Let me tell a few more stories. I want to get to Senator Durbin's 
point and tell some stories about the victims of urban gun violence as 
well, but let me tell one more story from Newtown.
  This is the story of our heroic principal. Dawn Hochsprung was the 
principal at Sandy Hook Elementary School. People have heard a lot 
about her because she was perhaps the first to die that day. When the 
bullets started flying, when she heard the gunman enter through the 
front door, she ran straight to him. Some of the investigators have 
posited, given the way the crime scene shook out, that she may have 
even lunged for the gunman to try to stop him before he turned the 
corner to the first grade classrooms. She was unsuccessful. She was 
killed--perhaps the first that day.
  The irony surrounding this day is multifold, but part of it involves 
the fact that one of her most recent proudest accomplishments as 
principal of that school was the establishment and integration of a 
brandnew security system, one that made sure every visitor who entered 
that school after 9:30 had to buzz in, had to talk to the security 
people, the front desk people, before they entered the school. That 
does not work too well when the person trying to gain entry does not 
need to press the buzzer but instead can take an AR-15, which sprays 
six bullets a second, and just knock out all of the windows.
  She was a passionate educator. She dove into her work at Sandy Hook. 
She was one of those folks who did not sit in their office. She was out 
amongst the hallways at all times trying to make that place a much more 
positive environment.
  She grew up in Connecticut. She lived in Woodbury, CT, with her 
husband and her two daughters and three stepdaughters. She grew up 
loving the outdoors. Her friends recalled that Dawn Lafferty at the 
time was a tomboy who loved sports in high school. She wasn't a top-
level athlete, but that didn't stop her.
  One of the most amazing stories I have heard about Dawn was that when 
she was in school at Naugatuck High School, she wanted to run with the 
boys track team. She wanted to run sprints. She wasn't allowed to do 
that. She protested to the coach, the administration, and they still 
said she couldn't run sprints with the boys track team. She took her 
case to the school board--as a high school student--and won her case. 
When she came back to her high school, she didn't just run sprints with 
the boys, but she recruited other girls to run sprints with her. She 
was a born leader.
  Perhaps we may take some solace in the fact that so many of these 
other kids here--Dylan, Chase, Benjamin, Jesse, and Ana--were leaders 
too. They were going to do amazing things with their lives. At least we 
were able to know with Dawn what her true potential was. We saw that 
potential in the wonderful school she built.
  I just spoke about Dylan. Dylan's parents came from England all the 
way to Sandy Hook, CT, for this school because of the programs Dawn 
built there. If they ever had any doubt as to whether they had chosen 
the right leader, they were confident of this when she ran to the 
gunman to try to stop the carnage from becoming worse.
  Let me speak about one more little girl, age 6, Madeleine Hsu. 
Madeleine was, again, one of the youngest victims that day. She was a 
shy and relatively quiet 6-year-old, but there were certain things that 
would make her light up. A lot of these kids loved animals. Madeleine 
loved dogs. She lit up around dogs. They were her passion. She was an 
avid reader, and she loved running and dancing. More than anything 
else, she loved to wear bright, flowery dresses which matched her 
personality. She shared a bed with two of her sisters. They had their 
own rooms, but they loved each other so much, they chose to sleep 
together at night. They miss her dearly.
  As Senator Durbin pointed out, 20 kids and 6 adults were killed in 
Newtown that day; 2 others, Adam and Nancy Lanza--28 total. This is 
less than the average number of people who are killed by gun violence 
across this country every day. We deserve to talk about them as well.
  Before I leave the floor today, I would like to talk about a couple 
of the most recent victims of gun violence. One can't even really read 
this poster Senator Durbin referred to because each one of these little 
dots is an individual figure representing people who have been killed 
in this country since December 14. The 28 people from Newtown aren't 
even on this chart. We are speaking about 3,800 people who have died as 
a result of gun violence.
  Some of these people died because they were possibly doing something

[[Page S2576]]

wrong or in the midst of an activity they shouldn't have been a part 
of. However, Chuck Walker was 15 years old and walking on his way to 
visit his girlfriend to deliver some new shoes he purchased for her. He 
was bringing a gift to his girlfriend. His family said this was a kid 
who never, ever was in trouble. He was walking to visit his girlfriend, 
and he was gunned down on the streets of Hillcrest Heights, MD, in an 
apparent robbery.
  Marckel Worman Ross, who was 18 years old, on September 11, 2012, was 
walking to school. He was a member of the track team, ROTC, and was 
thinking about a career in the military. He was found in his school 
uniform still holding his backpack. It was a random act of violence on 
the way to school.
  Moses Walker was older--40 years old. He was a police officer. He had 
just finished his shift in August of 2012. He was four blocks from his 
police station, and he was gunned down--1 year away from retirement. He 
was very active in his community, not only a great police officer but 
served as deacon of his church. He was remembered as a courteous, 
polite, and humble police officer--gunned down four blocks from his 
police station.
  These are the tragedies bringing us here to the floor today. As we 
have this debate, we should remember that every day 30 people across 
this country are dying from guns. We have the power to do something 
about it.
  I am as pleased as Senator Blumenthal about the compromise brought to 
this floor by Senators Manchin and Toomey. It is not perfect, but it is 
important. It is important because it will make our streets safer and 
ensure fewer criminals across this country have access to guns. It is a 
platform for more next week, but it is a very important start.
  I will be back to the floor later today and next week to speak about 
more of these victims.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, earlier I met with families from 
Newtown, CT, to discuss the legislation we are currently debating. It 
was emotional and difficult for all of us. I thank them for sharing 
their stories of their loved ones and their concerns with me. I hope my 
colleagues will also consider meeting with these families.
  At the meeting, they called for a debate on the legislation, a debate 
we are having. Nonetheless, we are in the unusual position of being 
asked to take a leap into the unknown. We are being asked to vote to 
proceed to an uncertain bill. That bill is not even the bill that we 
would likely consider if the motion to proceed were successful. The 
language on background checks would change. We have not seen the actual 
new background check language. But we are being asked to proceed to the 
bill anyway. What we do have is a summary of the proposed background 
check language. That summary raises questions. For instance, the 
summary states that the background check language applies to sales at 
gun shows and online. Is a background check required if someone sees a 
gun at a gun show, then proceeds to purchase the gun outside the gun 
show, maybe even in a parking lot? What if someone at a gun show trades 
but does not sell a gun? And it applies beyond gun shows. If a private 
person advertises a gun, then the transfer would have to go through a 
licensed dealer, at a price. So if someone takes out an ad to sell 
their gun in the local Farm Bureau newsletter or in their church 
bulletin, they would have to find a licensed gun dealer to conduct a 
background check before sale could go through.
  That is quite a limitation on private sales and ownership of guns. 
And it takes time in many places in this country to find that gun 
dealer to conduct that background check. The summary is not specific: 
which private sales would be exempt from the bill's background check 
requirements? The summary states that background checks are ``required 
for sales at gun shows and online while securing certain aspects of 2nd 
Amendment rights for law abiding citizens.''
  That should cause everyone concern. If the background check language 
secures ``certain aspects of 2nd Amendment rights,'' then what aspects 
of second amendment rights of law abiding citizens does it not secure?
  The summary says that the new language exempts ``temporary 
transfers.'' What is the difference between a ``temporary'' and a 
permanent transfer? How would a law-abiding citizen know whether the 
transfer would be considered to be ``temporary''? What if the person 
making the transfer thought at the time it was made that the transfer 
would be temporary but later decides that it should be for a longer 
time?
  And the summary claims that it will close the ``gun show and other 
looopholes.'' What ``other loopholes''? We should be skeptical about 
what rights could be infringed based on that claim. It is important to 
understand that there is no such thing as a ``gun show loophole.'' 
Under existing law, background checks are required for gun purchases 
from a federally licensed firearms dealer. This is true whether the 
purchase is made at a gun show or any other location. Also, under 
existing law, gun purchases made through someone who is not a federally 
licensed firearms dealer do not require a background check.
  This is true whether the sale is made at a gun show or not. Whether a 
sale is made at a gun show is therefore irrelevant to whether a 
background check is required. There is one rule for sales from licensed 
dealers and another for private sales. But under the new language, not 
all private sales will be treated the same. Some private sales will 
require background checks and others will not. That distinction will 
create, not close, a loophole. No longer would all private sales be 
treated the same. Some private sales will require background checks and 
others will not. There will be political pressure then to say that all 
private sales should be covered--universal background checks, in other 
words. And we heard testimony in the Judiciary Committee, and the 
Deputy Director of the National Institute of Justice has written, that 
universal background checks can be enforced only if gun registration is 
mandated.
  Now it has been said on the floor recently that background check 
legislation cannot lead to gun registries because Federal law prohibits 
that. But current Federal law can be changed. And the language 
currently before us requires recordkeeping, a step toward registration. 
Although the sponsor of that language said that the bill expressly 
provided that no registry could be created, the bill contains no such 
language at present. The sponsor was misinformed about his own bill. He 
admitted that the current background check language was not yet ready 
for consideration and needed clarifications that so far have not been 
forthcoming.
  We should have answers to these and other questions before we should 
proceed to the bill.
  And we should be wary of going to a bill when various senators have 
announced their intention to offer amendments to that bill that in my 
judgment raise serious constitutional questions under the second 
amendment.
  Mr. President, how can we responsibly proceed to a bill that contains 
language that even its sponsor admits is not ready for consideration?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, would the Senator yield?
  Mr. LEE. I yield to the Senator.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that upon the 
conclusion of the comments by the distinguished Senator from Utah, I be 
recognized.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LEE. I appreciate the cooperation and friendship of the senior 
Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. President, yesterday on the floor I discussed an initiative I 
launched this week called Protect2A to give voice to the millions of 
second amendment supporters around the United States who are very 
concerned about Congress enacting any new gun control measures.
  I am pleased to announce that we now have over 3,000 responses from 
citizens all across this country who are sharing their stories, their 
experiences, and their opinions about why they feel we should do 
everything in our power to protect their second amendment rights. I had 
only a brief time to share some of those stories yesterday and wish to 
use a few minutes today to share a few more.
  Kathy from the State of Virginia writes:


[[Page S2577]]


       My husband and I are senior citizens. He is a veteran of 
     the U.S. Army. Over the past several years, we have seen our 
     constitutional rights trampled and twisted, until we no 
     longer trust that our government has our well-being as its 
     primary concern. Last year, for the first time in our lives, 
     we bought a gun, not only to ensure our safety against 
     criminals, but to protect and defend our God-given rights as 
     citizens. The most basic right of all mankind, the right to 
     life itself, no longer exists in this country. Protecting our 
     rights, the few the government has left us, is of the utmost 
     importance to us and we will do everything necessary to hold 
     onto those rights, regardless of the source of the threats 
     against them. God bless America.

  Emily from Pennsylvania writes:

       I am 19 years old and I want to protect myself as soon as I 
     am legal to. As a young female living in Allentown, PA, I 
     don't like walking in the city because I'm afraid of 
     something happening to me. I believe in the power of the 
     Constitution and especially my second amendment rights. I am 
     a strong conservative who believes that the Constitution is 
     our guiding power and not the cronyism that seems to blanket 
     DC. The founding fathers knew what they were doing. As soon 
     as I am legal, I want to take gun safety classes and purchase 
     a handgun of my very own. I like to think that I can protect 
     my own life as well as another person whose life may be in 
     danger. Gun control doesn't solve anything. Criminals will 
     get guns no matter what. I want to be able to protect myself 
     as well as someone else. Please don't take away my second 
     amendment rights.

  Well said, Emily.
  William from Connecticut submitted the following statement:

       On Tuesday, February 11, 2003, my brother was confronted by 
     three armed thugs in a parking lot. Out of their stolen car, 
     with a stolen shotgun, they tried to rob him. Much to their 
     surprise, my brother had his legally owned pistol (with a 
     legal carry permit). He thwarted this and saved his own life 
     and held them at bay until the police arrived. Without this 
     second amendment he would've been another victim to the 
     growing street crime that these bills do not address.

  These are the rights we are trying to protect by requiring a 60-vote 
threshold on any new gun control legislation. In so doing, we are 
trying to prevent the ability of Members to push through legislation 
before anyone has had time to read and evaluate the language and then 
tell the American people what that language means for them, what the 
language would mean for their rights. Unfortunately, this is exactly 
what we are faced with today.
  Yesterday Senators Toomey and Manchin announced a new proposal that 
is widely expected to replace the current language on the background 
checks in this bill. Yet, as of this morning, this very moment, not a 
single Senator has been provided the legislative text of this 
provision. Because the background check measure is the centerpiece of 
this legislation, it is critical that we all know what is in the bill 
before we vote on it.
  As I have argued on this floor, in the national media, and back home 
in my home State of Utah, we should not be legislating by negotiating 
closed-door, backroom deals away from the eyes of the American people. 
We should not be voting before we read and understand exactly how these 
proposals will affect the rights of law-abiding citizens and whether we 
can say with any level of certainty they will reduce crime. This is 
exactly why we need more debate and why I ask my colleagues to vote no 
on cloture--so Senators and the American people may fully understand 
the consequences of this legislation.
  To be clear, the vote we will have this morning will be to end debate 
on whether the Senate should take up a bill, the very heart of which is 
being concealed from the Senate and concealed from the American people 
as of this very moment. Proponents say the people deserve a vote. Don't 
they deserve to know what they are voting on? I think they do.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am about to suggest the absence of a 
quorum for about 1 minute and ask unanimous consent that upon coming 
out of the quorum, I be recognized.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 
minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, earlier this week I spoke about the need 
for the Senate to consider legislation to help increase Americans' 
safety by reducing gun violence. I came to the floor of the Senate and 
I urged my fellow Senators to abandon efforts to filibuster proceeding 
to this bill. The Senate should not have to overcome a filibuster to 
respond to the call for action in response to the violence they are 
experiencing.
  I have the privilege of being the longest serving Member of this 
body. I have watched debate on so many issues. If there were ever an 
issue where all 100 of us should vote yes or no it is here.

  I was encouraged by the comments of a number of Senate Republicans 
that they are prepared to debate this matter and will not support this 
wrongheaded filibuster. Even the Wall Street Journal editorialized 
against this filibuster yesterday in a lead editorial entitled ``The 
GOP's Gun Control Misfire.'' I do not agree with much of that 
editorial, but I would quote this:

       If conservatives want to prove their gun-control bona 
     fides, the way to do it is to debate the merits and vote on 
     the floor.

  Senators should understand what is in this bill that a small minority 
of Republicans are seeking to prevent the Senate from even considering. 
The bill has three parts. None of them threaten the second amendment 
rights, none of them call for gun confiscation or a government 
registry. In fact, two of the three parts have always had bipartisan 
support. With regard to the third component--the provisions closing 
loopholes in our current background check system--Senators Manchin and 
Toomey yesterday announced they are going to have a bipartisan 
amendment for this component as well.
  Since the beginning of the 113th Congress, in the months since the 
tragedy in Newtown, the Judiciary Committee held three hearings and 
four mark ups focused on the issue of gun violence. The Committee voted 
in favor of the Leahy-Collins gun trafficking proposal that is now part 
of the legislative package the Majority Leader created to allow for 
Senate consideration. I described our legislation in some detail on 
Monday. I thanked our Ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, 
Senator Grassley, for working with us and supporting our gun 
trafficking bill. I commended Senator Collins, who has been my partner 
as we have moved forward with legislation to combat illegal gun 
trafficking and straw purchasers who obtain firearms to provide them to 
criminals and gangs. We have been joined in that bipartisan effort by 
Senators Durbin, Gillibrand, Kirk, Klobuchar, Franken, Blumenthal, 
Shaheen and King. A bipartisan majority of the Judiciary Committee 
voted for the Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act.
  Our bill is intended to give law enforcement better and more 
effective tools. It was an ATF whistleblower who testified last 
Congress that the existing firearms laws are ``toothless.'' We can 
create better law enforcement tools and that is what we are doing with 
the Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act. We need to close this 
dangerous loophole in the law that Mexican drug cartels, gangs and 
other criminals have exploited for too long.
  Straw purchasers circumvent the purposes of the background check 
system. Straw purchasing firearms is undertaken for one reason to get a 
gun into the hands of someone who is legally prohibited from having 
one. We know that many guns used in criminal activities are acquired 
through straw purchases.
  It was a straw purchaser who enabled the brutal murders of two brave 
firefighters in Webster, New York this past Christmas Eve, and it was a 
straw purchaser who provided firearms to an individual who murdered a 
police officer in Plymouth Township, Pennsylvania, last September.
  We need a meaningful solution to this serious problem. We also 
include suggestions from Senator Gillibrand to go after those who 
traffic in firearms by wrongfully obtaining two or more firearms. We 
worked hard to develop effective, targeted legislation that will help 
combat a serious problem and that will do no harm to the

[[Page S2578]]

Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans.
  Yesterday, Senator Collins, the senior Senator from Maine, and I were 
able to announce another step toward consensus. We had previously been 
engaged in discussions with law enforcement and victims groups. More 
recently we have been engaged in discussions with the National Rifle 
Association. We have agreed on modifications to the Stop Illegal 
Trafficking in Firearms Act. They address all of its substantive 
concerns while doing as we have always wanted to do--providing law 
enforcement officials with the tools they need to investigate and 
prosecute illegal gun trafficking and straw purchasing.
  Senator Collins and I are both strong supporters and advocates of 
second amendment rights for law-abiding Americans. We also agree that 
our law enforcement officials deserve our support in their efforts to 
keep guns out of the wrong hands. We worked with the NRA and are 
confident that nothing in our bill infringes on the Second Amendment 
rights of lawful gun owners and purchasers, while still providing a 
strong new set of tools for law enforcement officials.
  We protect legitimate sales and do not place unnecessary burdens on 
lawful transactions. We are pleased that the NRA agrees with us that 
this legislation is a focused approach to combat the destructive 
practices of straw purchasing and firearms trafficking while protecting 
the Second Amendment rights of Americans. Having now worked out 
differences with the NRA on our bipartisan legislation that would help 
keep guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals and individuals with 
severe mental illnesses, and give law enforcement the tools they need 
to investigate and prosecute these crimes more effectively, it seems 
absurd that some Senators nonetheless persist in filibustering 
consideration of our bill.
  The American people expect us to stand and face our responsibilities. 
Whether we like having to vote or not, we have taken an oath of office 
to uphold the Constitution, to uphold our laws. Congress has to 
confront the serious role that straw purchasing and gun trafficking 
play in supplying criminals with firearms for illegal purposes. It is 
not enough to stand on the floor of the Senate and say you are pro law 
enforcement. Let's take as a given everybody is pro law enforcement, 
but then give law enforcement the tools they need. The bipartisan Stop 
Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act will create specific Federal 
criminal statutes prohibiting the trafficking and straw purchasing of 
firearms, and also strengthens other law enforcement tools to assist 
those investigating these crimes. This is a common sense response to 
help in the fight against gun violence.
  This is a commonsense response to help in the fight against gun 
violence, and it will help law enforcement. That is why law enforcement 
strongly supports our bill. Yet some are seeking to filibuster it. Let 
them go to law enforcement groups and say they are trying to block them 
and take away the tools they need to keep every one of us safe.

  Our bill protects Second Amendment rights of lawful gun owners, while 
cracking down on criminals and those who would assist them. The bill 
does not create a national firearms registry, nor does it place any 
additional burdens on law-abiding gun owners or purchasers. It sends a 
clear message that those who would buy a gun on behalf of a criminal, a 
member of a drug cartel, or a domestic abuser will be held accountable. 
That is why our bill is strongly supported by law enforcement. Yet that 
is what some are seeking to filibuster. Congress should be confronting 
the serious role that straw purchasing and gun trafficking play in 
supplying criminals with firearms for illegal purposes, not ducking the 
issue.
  Senators are filibustering a bipartisan proposal that received 
bipartisan backing of the Senate Judiciary Committee to provide some 
Federal assistance to schools to create safer environments for children 
and young people. There is nothing unconstitutional about that. We 
should proceed to consider it and I would hope pass it so that more 
school resource officers can be hired and more can be done to help and 
protect our young people who are in schools around the country, where 
there are supposed to be.
  Finally, it is hard to understand how improving our background check 
system and plugging some of the loopholes in it that allow those who 
are by law prohibited from purchasing guns because they are dangerous 
criminals or dangerous to themselves and others because of mental 
illness justifies a filibuster. We have had background requirements for 
gun purchases for decades. We have had a background check system for 
decades. We have improved it repeatedly over time.
  I know gun store owners in Vermont. They follow the law and conduct 
background checks to block the conveyance of guns to those who should 
not have them. They wonder why others who sell guns do not have to 
follow these same protective rules. I agree with these responsible 
business owners.
  As I said, Congress should be confronting the serious role straw 
purchasing and gun trafficking play in supplying criminals with 
firearms for illegal purposes, not ducking the issue. Stand up and be 
counted. Stand up and be counted. Don't give speeches saying you are in 
favor of law enforcement but we are going to take away tools law 
enforcement needs. Stand up and be counted. Stand up and be counted. If 
we can all agree that criminals and those adjudicated as mentally ill 
should not buy firearms, why should we not try to plug the loopholes in 
the law that allow them to buy guns without background checks?
  If we agree the background check system is worthwhile, should we not 
try to reform its content so it can be more effective? What responsible 
gun owner objects to improving the background check system? Stand up 
and be counted.
  At our January hearing I pointed out that Wayne LaPierre of the NRA 
testified in 1999 in favor of mandatory criminal background checks for, 
as he put it, ``every sale at every gun show.'' He went on to emphasize 
the NRA's support for closing the loophole in the background check 
system by saying--in what has become an oft-quoted remark--``no 
loopholes anywhere for anyone.''
  Well, of course, it is common sense to close the gun show loophole. 
The Senate voted to do so in 1999. We should vote to do so again. This 
time we should get it enacted. One of the ways to do so is with the 
bipartisan proposal from Senators Manchin and Toomey to improve the 
law, if we are able to stop this ill-conceived filibuster and get to 
the bill.
  Americans across this great country are looking to us for solutions 
and for action, not filibustering or sloganeering. Americans are 
saying: Stand up and be counted. I opened our first hearing on these 
issues in January, asking Senators on both sides of the aisle to join 
in the discussion as part of a collective effort to find solutions to 
help assure that no family, no school, no community ever has to endure 
the kind of tragedy the families at Newtown and Aurora and Oak Creek, 
Tucson, Blacksburg or Columbine had to suffer.
  As I emphasized throughout the committee process, the second 
amendment is secure. It is going to remain secure and protected as part 
of my oath of office as a Senator. In two recent cases, the Supreme 
Court has confirmed that the second amendment, as the other aspects of 
our Bill of Rights, secures that fundamental individual right. 
Americans have the right to self-defense. They have the right to have 
guns in their homes to protect their families. No one is going to take 
away these rights or these guns. That second amendment right is the 
foundation on which our discussion rests. They are not at risk. But we 
cannot close our eyes to what is at risk: lives are at risk when 
responsible people fail to set up the laws to keep the guns out of the 
hands of those who will use them to commit mass murder.
  So I ask my fellow Senators to focus our discussion and debate on 
these proposed statutory measures intended to better protect our 
children and all Americans. Ours is a free society, an open society, a 
wonderful society. We should be coming together as elected 
representatives of all of the American people to consider how to become 
a safer and more secure society. I would have hoped all Senators from 
both parties would join together in good faith to strengthen our law 
enforcement efforts against gun violence and to protect public safety. 
Let's focus on our

[[Page S2579]]

responsibilities to the American people.
  We are the 100 Senators elected to represent more than 314 million 
Americans. That is an awesome responsibility. Let's stand up to that 
responsibility. We are accountable to those people. We are not 
accountable to special interest groups on either the right or the left. 
We are accountable to the more than 300 million Americans. Special 
interest lobbies on either the left or right should not dictate what we 
do. We do not need a lobby's permission to pass laws to improve public 
safety. That is our responsibility.
  I urge Senators to be less concerned with special interest scorecards 
and more focused on fulfilling our oath to faithfully discharge the 
duties of our office as Senators.
  I consider myself a responsible gun owner, but I am also someone who 
cherishes all of our constitutional rights. As a Senator who has sworn 
an oath to uphold those rights, as a father and a grandfather, and as a 
former prosecutor who has seen the results of gun violence firsthand, I 
have been working to build consensus around commonsense solutions. I am 
prepared to debate and vote on the measures before us. I challenge 
other Senators to do the same. Do the same. Stand up and be counted. 
Stand up and be counted.
  A filibuster says you are not willing to take a stand; that you vote 
maybe. Stand up and be counted. Have the courage. Stand up and be 
counted. Then let us work together to make all Americans safer.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, yesterday I had the solemn privilege of 
meeting with some of the families who lost loved ones in the Sandy Hook 
shooting. As a father, I can hardly begin to comprehend the enormous 
grief these individuals have suffered, losing such a young child or a 
spouse or a mother in an act of what would appear to be just senseless 
violence. Burying your child is something no parent should have to do.
  The families and friends of the victims at Sandy Hook are owed the 
dignity and respect of a transparent, good-faith effort to address gun 
violence. I do believe there is common ground upon which Republicans 
and Democrats can come together. The issue of mental health of the gun 
owner is that common ground for me, along with enforcing current laws 
that are on the books.
  If there is one thread that connects the horrific series of gun 
violence episodes in our country, particularly in recent times, it is 
the mental illness of the shooter. In every case, the perpetrator's 
mental illness should have been detected. In some instances it was 
detected but not reported. These individuals should never be allowed 
access to a gun. This is actually something we can and should do 
something about. We need to make sure the mentally ill are getting the 
help they need, not guns. As I said, this is something I believe all of 
us can agree on.
  In response to the tragedy at Virginia Tech in 2007, the Senate and 
the Congress unanimously passed a measure to bolster mental health 
reporting requirements on background checks.
  Some States, such as mine, Texas, have received high marks for their 
compliance. But many States have essentially been noncompliant, and the 
Department of Justice has failed to adequately back implementation of 
the law. So essentially the law that we passed in the wake of the 
Virginia Tech shooting to require reporting of people who are actually 
adjudicated mentally ill in their respective States is not working the 
way it should. Rather than string along an ineffective program, I think 
this is a wonderful opportunity for us to fix it. And we should fix it.
  I want to say a word, though, about symbolism versus solutions. I am 
not interested in Congress voting on a measure that would have no 
impact on the horrific violence we have seen in recent months. I am not 
interested in a symbolic gesture which would offer the families of the 
Sandy Hook shooting no real solutions. They told me they are not 
political. They don't come with an agenda. They are not asking us to 
pass a specific piece of legislation. They just want to know that their 
loved one did not die in vain, and that something good can come out of 
this terrible tragedy.
  So I think dealing with this mental health reporting issue is a 
common ground we could come together on. But we also need to make sure 
we are not just going to pass additional laws that will not be 
enforced. What possible solace could that be to these families, for 
Congress to pass additional laws that will never be enforced?
  Take, for example, the National Instant Criminal Background Check 
System--the NIC system, as it is called--which flags people who lie on 
their background check. The annual number of cases referred for 
prosecution fell sharply during the first 2 years of the current 
President's term of office. Indeed, there was a 58-percent drop in 
referrals and a 70-percent drop in prosecutions for people who lie on 
the background check. We can fix this.
  Let's make sure that guns aren't getting into the hands of people who 
we all agree should not have them. We could be doing this right now 
with broad bipartisan support.
  Let me conclude with a couple of observations about where we find 
ourselves with an 11 o'clock vote on an underlying bill which remains 
controversial and which I think the majority leader and all of us know 
has very little chance, if any, of going anywhere.
  We heard yesterday that our colleagues from West Virginia and Ohio 
have come together on a bipartisan background check bill. I asked my 
staff as recently as on my way over here whether the language had been 
released so we could actually read it and find out what is in it, and 
it has not. We have no commitment in front of the Senate by the 
majority leader that there will be a robust debate and amendment 
process, because there are a lot of amendments that need to be offered 
to whatever that so-far-unwritten bill says, I am sure. And we need to 
have a full, robust, transparent discussion of this issue in front of 
the American people.
  So I am not going to vote to proceed to a bill that has not yet been 
written, no matter how well intentioned it may be. We need to make sure 
that what we do is address the cause of this violence, and to come up 
not with symbolic gestures that will have no impact or to pass other 
laws that will not be enforced but to come together with real 
solutions. Rather than put on a show and pat ourselves on the back and 
call it a day, let's do something good to make sure we have done 
everything in our human capacity to prevent another Sandy Hook. This is 
what these families want. This is what they deserve. And this is what 
the American people deserve.
  This calls on the Senate to exercise its historic and its central 
role in bringing all sides together to try to come up with solutions. 
But if we can't do that here, if we can't do that now, when will we 
ever address this tragedy?
  The President has told some of these victims' families that this side 
of the aisle doesn't care about their loss. That is not true. That is 
false. The President is wrong. All of us care about these families. All 
of us should care about violence in our communities, and we should try 
to work together to find ways to address this--not in a symbolic sort 
of way but in a real way that offers a solution and maybe a little bit 
of progress on this issue that would allow these families to say, no, 
my loved one did not die in vain; something good came out of this. We 
want to work together to find real solutions to this type of senseless, 
incomprehensible violence that has taken too many lives. I hope we 
will.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

[[Page S2580]]

                             Cloture Motion

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, pursuant 
to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending motion to 
invoke cloture.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 32, S. 649, a bill to ensure that all 
     individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm 
     are listed in the national instant criminal background check 
     for every firearm sale, and for other purposes.
         Harry Reid, Patrick J. Leahy, Robert Menendez, Sheldon 
           Whitehouse, Jeff Merkley, Christopher A. Coons, 
           Benjamin L. Cardin, Barbara Boxer, Debbie Stabenow, 
           Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Richard J. Durbin, Patty Murray, 
           Jack Reed, Dianne Feinstein, Richard Blumenthal, 
           Christopher Murphy, Elizabeth Warren

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. By unanimous consent, the mandatory 
quorum call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to proceed to S. 649, a bill to ensure that all individuals who 
should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the national 
instant criminal background check system and require a background check 
for every firearm sale, and for other purposes shall be brought to a 
close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 68, nays 31, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 95 Leg.]

                                YEAS--68

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cowan
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Flake
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Isakson
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--31

     Barrasso
     Begich
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Lee
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lautenberg
       
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore.
  On this vote, the yeas are 68, the nays are 31. Three-fifths of the 
Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the 
motion is agreed to.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I appreciate everyone's cooperation. I am 
glad we were able to get cloture on this legislation. This legislation 
and this vote that just took place are, of course, important for our 
country, especially for the people from Connecticut who have lived 
through their tragedy. But it is also important for this body, this 
Senate. There have been many things written in the last several months 
about how the Senate cannot operate. And I so appreciate the Members on 
the other side of the aisle--especially John McCain on a Sunday show 
who said: I don't think there should be a filibuster on this. John 
McCain is a leader and has been a leader in this country for 31 years 
and people respect his opinion. I am grateful to all Republicans who 
joined with us to allow this debate to go forward.
  The hard work starts now. As everyone knows, because we have all 
heard this on a number of occasions, the first amendment is going to be 
one that has been worked on for weeks by Senator Manchin, Senator 
Toomey, and Senator Kirk. That will be the first amendment. We expect 
to lay that down later today. I hope there will be no efforts to 
continue this filibuster with the 30 hours. There is no reason we 
shouldn't get to legislating.
  We have an important lunch, as everyone knows. We are going to finish 
that lunch, and I hope we can come back and lay down this amendment and 
start some debate on it. I have indicated to Senators Toomey and 
Manchin--they want to spend a lot of time because they have to get 
prepared for what they are going to do beginning Tuesday morning--and I 
said that is fine. In the meantime, there are other things we can do on 
this legislation.
  We know there are other amendments, and I hope no one is going to 
say, Well, I am going to filibuster every amendment that is offered. 
That defeats the whole purpose of why we are here. We can't allow that 
to happen. It would be such a shame if that, in fact, did happen.
  We are going to have an open amendment process, meaning Senators are 
going to be able to offer amendments. One thing we can't do is have 
pending scores of amendments and we are not going to do that. We need 
to make this debate so people understand what is going on.
  There are certain things we are going to have to vote on here. We are 
going to have to vote on the Manchin-Toomey amendment. We are going to 
have to have a vote on assault weapons. Some people love it, some 
people hate it, but we are going to have to have a vote on it. We are 
also going to have to have a vote on the size of clips or magazines. 
Those are the only votes I am going to make sure we have. Other than 
that, we should have amendments. If people think the present law is too 
weak, they can change that or if people think it is too strong, have 
some amendments to change that. We cannot have just a few Senators 
spoiling everything for everyone here. This is the time we should lay 
down amendments and see if we can pass them. We can set up procedures 
here, as we have done, to make sure everyone is heard.
  I can remember when I had to meet with the families from Newtown. To 
be very honest, I didn't want to, but I did. I met them over here in 
room 219. That was a hard meeting, because everyone knows how I have 
approached things in the past with regard to these matters now before 
us. I am like virtually everyone in America: The events of the last few 
months have been very tragic--people going to a movie theater to watch 
a movie and they are gunned down, and more would have been gunned down 
but for the fact that the man's 100-clip magazine jammed. Newtown, we 
have all seen the pictures that are not here today of those babies who 
were shot, more than once. So America has a different view of this 
violence than they did just a little while ago.
  We all believe in the Constitution. We all know what all of these 
amendments are about and what they are supposed to do and we are going 
to make sure that during this debate we keep the Constitution in mind.
  The families of the most recent tragedy in Newtown deserve a debate, 
because these people from Newtown who are the survivors of this tragedy 
are representing everybody in America. That is why we need this debate. 
The Senate is going to give these family members, friends, and people 
who live in Newtown, no matter how long it takes, the ability to see 
how people stand on these issues. So the Senate is going to give them 
votes. We hope it will be sooner rather than later, but we are going to 
work through this.
  Senators on both sides have amendments they want to offer. We have 
our most experienced Senator, who has been here longer than anyone 
else, managing this bill, Senator Leahy of Vermont. He has always been 
a fair man and he will continue to be. He knows there are a few 
amendments that have to go forward, but after that we are going to be 
as deliberative as we can to make sure people have the opportunity to 
offer amendments.
  I repeat, after we get through the Manchin-Toomey amendment, the 
assault weapons, and the high-capacity

[[Page S2581]]

magazines, we are going to make sure everyone has the opportunity, and 
the Republicans can catch up. We can have the first amendment, the 
Toomey-Manchin amendment--I don't know if it is a Democratic amendment 
or a Republican amendment, but that is the first one we are going to 
do. After we get through these two things, we will have the 
Republicans. If they are two or three behind, they can catch up with us 
and then we can alternate back and forth. Even though there is no rule 
requiring it, that is the best way to move forward.
  I am grateful to everyone we are here and able to start legislating 
on this issue that has caught the attention of the American people and, 
frankly, the world.


                            Order For Recess

  Mr. President, we are having a joint meeting. I ask unanimous consent 
the Senate recess from 12:30 until 2:30 today to allow for a joint 
caucus meeting, and that all time during recess and morning business 
count postcloture on the motion to proceed to S. 649.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. I note the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, before I make a statement relative to an 
unrelated issue, I just want to say a very quick word about the 
historic vote that took place a few minutes ago on the floor of the 
Senate. I believe we had 16 Republicans who joined us in an effort to 
proceed to a bill that will initiate a debate--one of the first in 
years--on the floor of the Senate about gun safety in America.
  I salute those Members of the Senate from both sides of the aisle who 
supported that motion to proceed, but especially from the other side. I 
know it took a great deal of courage, political courage, for them to 
step up and to at least initiate this debate. I will tell you, there 
were those among them--some 13--who signed a letter saying: We are 
going to filibuster this matter to stop it. They did not succeed today 
in that effort because 16 on the Republican side joined us. I do not 
presume they are going to vote for all or any of the amendments to be 
offered. But at least they allowed the Senate to be the Senate instead 
of having us bogged down--as we have over 400 times in the last 6 
years--in a filibuster.
  I hope during the course of this debate on the floor we are able to 
have amendments debated and voted on. The majority leader made that 
request earlier, and I believe, for the good of this Senate--and 
certainly for the debt we owe to America to address the issues of the 
day--we should address them in a bipartisan fashion in courteous but 
thorough debate. That is what the Senate has stood for as an 
institution, and I hope it does, and continues to.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Durbin and Mr. Coons pertaining to the 
introduction of S. 718 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements 
on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. COONS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________