COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2016; Congressional Record Vol. 162, No. 98
(Senate - June 20, 2016)

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 S4335-S4353]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2016

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 2578, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2578) making appropriations for the 
     Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related 
     Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and 
     for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Shelby/Mikulski amendment No. 4685, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       McConnell (for Feinstein) amendment No. 4720 (to amendment 
     No. 4685), to authorize the Attorney General to deny requests 
     to transfer a firearm to known or suspected terrorists.
       McConnell (for Cornyn) amendment No. 4749 (to amendment No. 
     4720), to Secure our Homeland from radical Islamists by 
     Enhancing Law enforcement Detection (``SHIELD'').
       McConnell motion to commit the bill to the Committee on the 
     Judiciary, with instructions, (McConnell (for Murphy) 
     amendment No. 4750), 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.
       McConnell (for Grassley) amendment No. 4751 (to (the 
     instructions) amendment No. 4750), to address gun violence 
     and improve the availability of records to the National 
     Instant Criminal Background Check System.
       McConnell amendment No. 4752 (to amendment No. 4751), to 
     change the enactment date.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, a few days after the mass shooting in 
Orlando, I received a very powerful letter from Ella Staats, a young 
Vermonter who, like Americans across our land, was sickened and 
horrified by this senseless act of hatred that we saw in Orlando.
  What was pointed out to me in this letter, this eloquent, passionate 
heartfelt letter, is that Ella is 15 years old. In her letter addressed 
to me, under the auspices of the Young Writers Project, she explained 
that even at her age, she has ``already seen so many mass shootings 
that it is becoming harder and harder to faze [her].'' Ella calls on 
Congress to act, writing: ``It is time that the gun laws in our country 
were completely reformed'' so these violent and hateful acts will be 
prevented.
  After I read and reread her eloquent letter, I was moved. I sat down 
in my home in Vermont, and I started to draft a response, going through 
all the votes I had taken over the years. I started looking up all the 
hearings I had convened on gun violence, all the bills I authored and 
cosponsored, those I moved through the Judiciary Committee and even on 
the Senate floor, but then I stopped--this was just a catalogue.
  I decided the nature and the quality and the moving aspect of Ella's 
letter deserved a response on the Senate floor because Ella has given 
voice to something urgent that many people in Vermont and across the 
country are feeling right now.
  Here is my reply to Ella:
  Dear Ella, thank you for your thoughtful letter. I have read it 
several times and I want you to know how powerful it is to speak up 
about issues as important as this one. Some worry that many of your 
generation have disengaged from involvement in the big issues of our 
day, but your letter gave me hope. You are right. It is long past time 
for Congress to reform the laws that allow mass gun violence to 
flourish in our country.
  You deserve to feel safe. You should not have to fear that guns 
designed for the battlefield will end up in the hands of terrorists or 
violent criminals. A large majority of our fellow Americans feel just 
as we do and support sensible answers. But your government has let you 
down. Time and time and time again, commonsense remedies are thwarted 
by obstruction and inertia and powerful lobbies, and only if more 
people like you stand up will we be able to change this.
  Ella, I want you to know that I have been working for years to find 
practical solutions that will stop the gun violence that continues to 
touch every corner of our country. But I bet that the last thing you 
want is a list of all the bills I have written or voted for but have 
not passed. You want to know how we are going to overcome the well-
funded opposition to passage of laws that will reduce gun violence.
  First, we must remember the amazing men, women and children who die 
from gun violence every day. Sadly these tragedies are not limited to 
mass shootings. It is essential that we pay attention to the loss that 
thousands of mothers and fathers, sons and daughters feel each day 
because of a shooting that could have been prevented.
  Second, we need new voices like yours. We need you to hold us 
accountable. We need more people to demand reform so that we can 
finally overcome the well-funded opposition to commonsense laws that 
would keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists.
  Ella, I share your frustrations and I beg you not to become numb to 
this hatred and violence. I urge you to speak out in your community, on 
social media and to demand accountability. It often takes time--too 
long a time--but speaking out, sharing your ideas and views, and 
contacting your elected representatives makes a difference. I hope the 
votes that I cast on your behalf tonight demonstrate that I hear you 
and I agree that we must act to prevent the next Orlando. Ella, thank 
you for doing that--for speaking out and for holding us accountable.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Ella Staat's full letter 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S4336]]

  


                           (By Ella Staats )

       Dear Senator Leahy:
       I am a Vermont teen who has been deeply saddened by the 
     Orlando shooting. I am enraged at this terrible act of 
     targeted violence against the LGBT+ community, saddened by 
     the immense loss of life, and mourning for the victims and 
     their families.
       It is time that the gun laws in our country were completely 
     reformed. It is time that people with such senseless hatred 
     cannot commit such a terrible crime so easily.
       I would expect and, frankly, hope that you and every 
     Congressperson around the United States are receiving 
     thousands more letters like this one.
       Because something needs to change.
       I am a teenager growing up in a world where, at 15, I have 
     already seen so many mass shootings that it is becoming 
     harder and harder to faze me.
       But the homophobia, and the scale of this attack deeply 
     disturb me. I may not know everything about politics, but I 
     am urging you to please, please do something. Something big.
       This may not be a long letter, but I hope I have gotten my 
     point across.
       I am tired of excuses. I am tired of waiting. I am tired 
     because I know this is not the last awful shooting I will see 
     in my lifetime. Unless this government finally steps up and 
     makes a change, this will continue to be the norm.
       And a country where something like the Orlando shootings is 
     commonplace is not a country I want to spend the rest of my 
     life in.

  Mr. LEAHY. Like Ella, Marcelle and I continue to mourn the deaths of 
49 innocent people in Orlando just over a week ago. Just a year ago we 
were mourning the loss of 9 parishioners who were murdered in their 
church by a hateful domestic terrorist. It is unacceptable that 
hundreds more have died as a result of mass shootings since that tragic 
day in Charleston. This includes the victims killed at military 
facilities in Tennessee, a college in Oregon, a Planned Parenthood 
clinic in Colorado, an office gathering in San Bernardino, and dozens 
of other communities around the country.
  Enough is enough. Ella is rightfully tired of excuses--and so am I. 
We cannot accept that daily shootings are the new normal. I was proud 
to join Senator Murphy, Senator Booker, Senator Blumenthal, and others 
here on the Senate floor last Wednesday in a call to action, and I 
commend those Senators for their determined leadership last week. We 
have to do something. Congress must act.
  When Democrats were last in the majority in the Senate, I was 
Chairman of the Judiciary Committee last Congress and we took action. 
We convened hearings, debated and reported out sensible legislation to 
punish criminals who traffic in firearms, to close loopholes that allow 
criminals to acquire guns, and other measures to prevent mass 
shootings. We had broad support from the public and a bipartisan group 
of Senators. But Senate Republicans blocked every single one of these 
responsible proposals. And since re-taking control of the Senate, 
Republicans have stood in the way of even the most modest reforms. 
There have been no hearings and there was no willingness to allow votes 
on any gun violence legislation until Democrats took a stand.
  Last week, Democrats demanded action on this issue, and tonight we 
will have four votes, and Americans across the country will know where 
each Senator stands. I am a responsible and proud gun owner, and most 
Vermonters know we should do everything we can to keep guns out of the 
hands of suspected terrorists. In order to do that, we must close the 
loophole that allows suspected terrorists to pass the background checks 
conducted at gun stores. Senator Feinstein's amendment would give law 
enforcement the discretion to actually stop the sale of a gun to a 
known or suspected terrorist who presents a public safety threat. Had 
Senator Feinstein's amendment been law when the Orlando shooter 
attempted to buy his assault weapon, the FBI would have had notice to 
see what he was doing and could have prevented the tragedy in Orlando. 
The Department of Justice, which includes the FBI, supports Senator 
Feinstein's amendment and I support this commonsense amendment.
  Closing the ``terror gap'' is not enough. If a potential terrorist is 
prevented from buying a gun in a local store, we have to ensure that he 
cannot simply buy the same gun online without any sort of background 
check. If background checks are not universal--online, at gun shows, 
and everywhere else--then what is the point? Senator Murphy's amendment 
closes a major loophole by requiring background checks for every 
firearm sale, including gun shows and Internet sales--with reasonable 
exceptions including transfers to close family members.

  The amendments offered by Senators Feinstein and Murphy are sensible 
approaches that will help stop the gun violence that is plaguing our 
Nation. In contrast, the alternatives offered by Senators Cornyn and 
Grassley do not adequately address the problems we face--and in some 
respects they make things worse. The Cornyn amendment would impose 
impractical and unnecessary burdens on law enforcement, and could allow 
a known or suspected terrorist to buy a gun even when the government 
has filed an emergency petition to block the sale. And the Grassley 
amendment does nothing to fix the gaping holes in the background check 
system. I am concerned that the Grassley amendment could actually make 
it easier for individuals with known mental illnesses to obtain 
firearms. Anyone who is watching this debate to determine which 
proposals would help prevent the next Orlando tragedy need to 
understand that neither the Cornyn nor Grassley amendments would have 
stopped the Orlando shooter from getting his guns. Congress must pass 
bills that fix loopholes in a responsible way, not create more 
dangerous gaps in our gun laws.
  The vast majority of Americans support stronger background checks. 
They want to prevent terrorists of all types from obtaining guns. When 
I pick up a firearm from a gun store in Vermont, even though the person 
may have known me all his life, I have to go through a background 
check. That does not bother me a bit. But I do not want somebody who 
has warrants outstanding against them or restraining orders from their 
spouse against them to be able to walk into a gun show and buy the same 
weapon with no background check. If Senators listen to their 
constituents, they will do the right thing and vote for the Feinstein 
and the Murphy amendments to keep guns out of the hands of criminals 
and suspected terrorists. And they will vote against the Cornyn and 
Grassley amendments.
  In the wake of mass gun violence, whether the victims are members of 
the LGBT community, African-American church parishioners, first graders 
in an elementary school, college students, or military servicemembers 
or others in our community, we are called to come together in 
solidarity as Americans. We must come together in support of the 
victims, their families, law enforcement personnel and first 
responders, and the entire community tonight. Let's enact real 
solutions. They might prevent further acts of senseless violence.
  To the millions of Americans who agree with Ella, I hope you are 
watching the Senate today. I thank Ella for reminding us all that we 
cannot stand idly by, wait for the next tragedy, and simply offer our 
thoughts and prayers.
  Now is the time Congress has to act to pass commonsense measures that 
have languished for too long and could save American lives. I support 
the amendments offered by Senator Feinstein and Senator Murphy.
  I hope my fellow Senators will do the same.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we are now debating the Commerce-
Justice-Science appropriations bill. I am the vice chair of that 
subcommittee and just wanted to make people aware that the pending bill 
funds the Department of Commerce--which hopefully works to create jobs 
in our country--the Justice Department, the National Science 
Foundation, the space agency, all related to how we build a strong 
economy and how we protect our people.
  It is a bill that I have worked on not only all year long, but I have 
worked on this bill for close to 30 years. When this subcommittee bill 
moves, it will be the final subcommittee in which I will have been in a 
major chairmanship, vice-chairmanship role.
  So people would think: Gee, Senator Barb wants to move this major 
bill along. I sure do. I have worked hands-on with my colleague, the 
Senator from Alabama, Mr. Shelby. We have a good bill. We have a bill 
for which I will continue to advocate.

[[Page S4337]]

  But people say: Well then, Barb, why would you support a filibuster? 
I will tell you why I supported a filibuster: guns, guns, guns, guns. 
And on the anniversary of the assassination of those people at the 
Charleston church, we had yet another mass murder scene occur in 
Orlando, FL.
  We organized the filibuster so that we could get a vote to stop the 
terrorist suspects from getting guns and also to extend background 
checks for all gun sales and to extend those background checks to the 
Internet and gun shows so that we could curb violence.
  I actually wanted to go further. I wanted to bring back the ban on 
assault weapons that expired because an assault weapon is no more than 
a weapon of war to be used by the military or those in defense of our 
country who have to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time with 
as few trigger pulls as possible. But, no, we couldn't get that, so we 
went to these two bills--one to close the terrorist loophole and the 
other to extend background checks.
  I supported the men of Newtown. I see one Senator on the floor now, 
the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, a former attorney general 
who was in the Senate when Newtown happened, along with his junior 
colleague, Senator Chris Murphy also of Connecticut, and Senator Booker 
of New Jersey. They led this fight.
  I am proud of what they did because--what did they filibuster for? 
Only to get a vote. We had to have a filibuster to get a vote on 
offering ideas on how we could curb gun violence in our country and 
protect our own people. One is against terrorists getting guns, and the 
other is extending background checks to the Internet sales and to gun 
show sales.
  I come from a State with a proud heritage of hunting. In many parts 
of our State, it is part of our way of life. We respect that, and this 
will in no way impede anybody from being able to do that. Yet we had to 
filibuster to get a vote--not even a filibuster on the bill. In just a 
matter of 2 hours from now, we will be voting on those two amendments. 
I hope those amendments pass.
  The other side of the aisle also has alternatives to those. That is 
the American way. We presented an idea, and they think they have an 
idea. But let's vote on who has the best idea to curb violence and 
protect us against terrorism.
  This isn't the first time someone filled with hate and armed with a 
high-powered weapon has killed his fellow citizens. Time and again, 
innocent Americans have died--in a church in Charleston, in schools 
such as Newtown, in a movie theater, or at work. The list goes on.
  Also, the availability of guns occurs in our cities--in places such 
as Baltimore where we have a high homicide rate due to the drug trade. 
We would like to be able to address that today, but instead we have 
focused on these two specific things. As I said, I would like to have 
done more, but this is a fantastic start. I salute those colleagues who 
led the filibuster. America wants us to take action.
  Let's go to closing the terrorist loophole. When I get on an 
airplane, I go through a metal detector, I take my shoes off, and I 
take my jacket off. There was a time when they even looked at what I 
had in my tube of lipstick so that it would not be a lethal weapon.
  I support that. I don't want to be blown up in the sky, and I don't 
want anybody else on that plane to be either. But why is it we would go 
through such incredible scrutiny to board an airplane to protect us 
against terrorists, yet we have no scrutiny of the people on a 
terrorist watch list to be able to buy a gun.
  You can be on a terrorist watch list, but one of the ways you are 
going to commit terror is to kill people--one through mass murder like 
the horrific 9/11 event that still sears our memory and breaks our 
heart every time we think about it. But, my gosh, if I am going to get 
on an airplane and they are going to want to know what is in my tube of 
lipstick when I go through--that it is not a lethal weapon--certainly, 
why don't we try to curb lethal weapons?
  That is why I support the Feinstein amendment. You could walk into a 
gun store now, and in 3 days or less you can walk out with a high-
powered rifle, a high-capacity magazine, unless you have committed a 
crime.
  You cannot get on an airplane, but you can buy an AR-15. This is 
unbelievable, and this is what Senator Feinstein's amendment would fix. 
I am proud to be a cosponsor of her amendment. I am pleased the Senate 
will vote on it, and I hope we can pass it.
  The distinguished Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn, has an alternative. 
Let him explain it and defend it. I think the Feinstein amendment is 
superior.
  I also hope we pass the Murphy amendment to close the gun show 
loophole. Today 40 percent of gun sales are unlicensed. They are sold 
online or at gun shows. It means that 40 percent of the gun sales have 
no background check, giving felons, domestic-violence abusers, or 
terrorists easy access to guns.
  This amendment will help with two things: It will get all of the 
names of all people prohibited from buying guns into the National 
Instant Criminal Background Check System, which is the Federal 
background check system run by the FBI, and it will require background 
checks for the sale or transfer of all firearms by private sellers.
  Background checks do work. In 18 States where background checks are 
required for all handgun sales, 46 percent fewer women are killed by 
domestic partners and 48 percent fewer law enforcement officers are 
killed with handguns.
  So if you want to protect law enforcement, if you want to protect us 
from domestic violence abusers, you want to close this gun show 
loophole. It will not only deal with terrorists, but it will deal with 
people who are deeply, deeply troubled.
  I urge my colleagues to pass the Murphy-Blumenthal amendment.
  Before I leave the floor, I wish to say something to the Senator from 
Connecticut. After Newtown, I really thought we would do something. 
After the massacre of 20 children and 6 educators who literally put 
themselves in harm's way to save the children--6 educators, 20 
children, killed by an assault weapon--I thought we would do something.
  If we didn't do it after Newtown, I didn't know when we would do it. 
Then there was Aurora, there was Charleston, and now there is Orlando. 
But we didn't do it after Newtown.
  I really hope this is a new day. I thank the Senator for standing up 
for those families and for all in this country. I am honored and 
pleased to stand with him.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I rise today to say to my colleagues who 
are here that I hope that we can stop the politics and really focus on 
a result that will make a difference for the American people.
  All of our hearts were broken across this country as we woke up the 
Sunday before last to the news of the horrific terrorist attack on the 
nightclub in Orlando that took the lives of 49 innocent people, and 53 
more were injured. I can't imagine how their families feel and the pain 
their loved ones must be experiencing. Our prayers are with them and 
those who were wounded and with our brave first responders who had to 
go there to address this horrible terrorist attack.
  This was an attack that shook our Nation. It was an attack on our 
LGBT community in a place where people come together to enjoy 
themselves to celebrate who they are. It was an act of terrorism; it 
was an act of hatred. This was the worst terrorist attack on our soil 
since September 11.
  It is a somber reminder--unfortunately, the terrorist who committed 
this attack, someone who pledged allegiance to the leader of ISIS, 
someone who, unfortunately, committed an act of terrorism and an act of 
hatred--that ISIS continues to plan and inspire attacks against us here 
at home and that we do have to take this fight to ISIS much more 
aggressively and make sure that they don't continue to have the 
capacity to inspire terrorist attacks against us on our homeland or 
against our allies around the world, as we have seen in other places 
such as Paris and Brussels.
  We have to defeat radical Islamic terrorists, and we have to destroy 
ISIS so

[[Page S4338]]

they can no longer spread hatred, violence, and death.
  Unfortunately, the terrorist who committed this horrible attack in 
Orlando was investigated by our FBI. During that investigation, he was 
placed on what is called the selectee list. That list is part of a 
larger list sometimes referred to as the terrorist watch list. When an 
individual goes to purchase a firearm and they are on the terrorist 
watch list, the FBI is notified that purchase is taking place. They 
have up to 72 hours to take some action or to further their 
investigation. This individual, this horrible terrorist was taken off 
the list because the FBI had closed its investigation.
  So I hope we do not lose sight on this floor of the fact that we 
better do everything we can to understand any gaps that exist in our 
intelligence system regarding that investigation, understand why it was 
closed, and make sure investigations like this don't get closed in the 
future. We must have a situation where the FBI has the resources and 
tools it needs to follow up properly when they have someone in their 
sights the way they had with this terrorist. The reality is, had he 
been on the list, as he had been previously before the investigation 
was closed, the FBI would have been notified of his firearm purchase.
  On the floor today, we have proposals to address whether terrorists 
should be allowed to purchase guns. Make no mistake, Mr. President, gun 
control won't stop terrorism. However, I think we can all agree that we 
do not want terrorists to purchase firearms.
  With both these competing proposals on the floor, we do have some 
common ground: that terrorists should not be permitted to purchase 
firearms. Unfortunately, where we find ourselves is playing our typical 
political football. I believe we should stop playing political football 
with something so important.
  As a member of the Committee on Armed Services, I am going to 
recommit myself--and I hope everyone in this body will--to doing 
everything I can to defeat ISIS. I also believe we should recommit 
ourselves to finding out if there are gaps in our intelligence system 
that need to be addressed and understanding why this investigation was 
closed. We must also make sure the FBI has the tools it needs to 
prevent these attacks.
  I also believe we should work together to ensure that terrorists are 
not allowed to buy firearms. But we know what is going to happen. We 
will not find a solution by sticking to two measures that failed 
before, mostly on party lines. So I have been working with Senator 
Collins, Senator Flake, and Senator Graham, and talking to people on 
both sides of the aisle about coming together with a compromise that 
can pass this body and make sure terrorists are not allowed to buy 
guns.
  If you are too dangerous to board a commercial plane, it stands to 
reason you should not be able to buy a gun. It is as simple as that. 
And I think people on both sides of the aisle agree on that in 
principle. So why can't we act in good faith and figure out the best 
way to achieve that goal? This is a gravely serious issue that requires 
a serious response. There is a solution here, and I am committed to 
finding it, but to find that solution, we have to come together.
  Instead of having competing proposals that have already mostly failed 
in this Chamber when we took those votes back in December, let's put 
aside the gamesmanship and come together to get a proposal that will be 
effective and get a result for the American people.
  The Senate will be considering two proposals, as I referenced. Both 
have failed, mostly on party lines. By all accounts, these proposals 
are likely to fail again and we will then be right back where we 
started--no safer, no smarter, no more successful in protecting our 
citizens. There will be more political blame, but we will be no closer 
to a solution, to a result on something that matters, that means we 
will move forward in ensuring that terrorists do not have access to 
firearms.
  I am here to talk about a better way. During the past week, in 
working with Senators Collins, Flake, Graham, and others and reaching 
out to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, we want to propose 
legislation that may actually pass the Senate. To get to that solution, 
we have to move this debate forward. That is why I will be voting today 
to advance both options before us in order to provide an opportunity 
for us to come together with a bipartisan compromise that will get a 
result for the American people.
  There is an opportunity in this debate to go forward and to get a 
result. Unfortunately, both bills on the floor aren't the answer. We 
know that. They both failed before. So I will be continuing to push to 
get a result.
  What we are doing this afternoon in this political exercise is 
pushing for legislation that both sides know is going to fail. Both 
options before us--that of Senator Feinstein and Senator Cornyn--are 
well-intentioned, but each has flaws that I am concerned about. Senator 
Feinstein's approach is very broad, and it would include the entire 
terrorism database. It could include instances where there has only 
been a derogatory allegation made about an American which has not been 
validated. There are real due process questions about that, using the 
broader list. It is much broader than the phrase ``no fly, no buy.'' I 
think we all understand that--no fly, no buy. But this is much broader, 
and it is misleading to call the Feinstein proposal that proposal. If 
you cannot get on a plane, you shouldn't be able to buy a firearm, but 
this measure doesn't require the government show anything other than a 
reasonable belief that you have been engaged in conduct relating to 
terrorism, and it doesn't necessarily mean it has been validated.
  In December, I supported Senator Cornyn's legislation because it was 
similar to Senator Feinstein's legislation but it had additional, 
stronger due process protections. However, Senator Cornyn's legislation 
requires the FBI to act in 72 hours, to go to a court in 72 hours to 
present probable cause. Having been a former murder prosecutor, I am 
concerned that is not enough time under these circumstances to take 
proper action and to be able to mount all of that before a court to 
meet a probable cause standard. So I think there are some concerns that 
I have in terms of the timing with Senator Cornyn's legislation and 
also the fact that if you had probable cause, you probably would have 
already charged someone with a crime.

  There is a better way. These two pieces of legislation that I will be 
moving forward in this debate are a start, but they are not the end. 
They are not an end until we get a commonsense result that ensures that 
terrorists can't buy guns and that we protect the due process rights of 
American citizens. So our proposal is one that would ensure that if you 
are on the no-fly list--which, by the way, roughly 800 Americans are on 
the no-fly list--that would ensure you could not go and purchase a 
firearm. But if you believe you are being wrongfully denied your right, 
you can challenge that in court. If the government is wrong, then they 
are going to have to pay your costs and attorney fees.
  Our legislation would also ensure that individuals like the horrible 
terrorist who committed these attacks in Orlando and who are on a 
smaller sublist called the selectee list, which is a list that is 
smaller than the overall terrorist watch list--there must be reasonable 
suspicion that an individual meets additional heightened criteria, 
where they have additional derogatory information above and beyond the 
criteria required for the broader database that someone is engaged in 
terrorism. The Orlando terrorist who committed these horrific attacks 
was on this list. That group of individuals would not be permitted to 
purchase a firearm, but they, too, would have the opportunity to go to 
court and to challenge that decision and, if the government is wrong, 
to make sure their costs are paid for.
  Our proposal would also ensure that if you have been on this list for 
the last 5 years, the FBI would be notified if you went to purchase a 
firearm. Why is that important? Because unfortunately the terrorist who 
committed these horrible attacks was taken off the list. We better find 
out why that happened. But we will make sure, in this legislation, that 
if you were on the list and you go to purchase a firearm, that at least 
the FBI is notified so they can follow up. If they want to conduct 
additional investigation and surveillance--like I hope they would have 
done in this instance had they learned about this individual--they have 
the opportunity to do that.

[[Page S4339]]

  We believe this is a fair, workable solution. It is a solution that 
makes sense. It is a solution when we think about the overall terror 
database, which has about 1 million people on it. The no-fly list has 
about 800 Americans on it. If you combine the selectee list and the no-
fly list, we are talking about fewer than 2,500 Americans. If you are 
on that list and you are being focused on in an open investigation by 
the FBI, with the belief you are engaged in terrorism or engaged with 
terrorists, then you should not be able to buy a firearm.
  We have a responsibility to protect peoples' constitutional rights. 
We need to make sure there is due process for anything we do here. That 
is our basic responsibility. That is why our legislation makes sure 
terrorists can't buy guns, and it also makes sure the due process 
rights of Americans are protected. If the government is wrong, their 
costs and attorney's fees will be paid for because the government 
should have that burden.
  I suspect these two proposals may fail tonight--not because of 
anything I will do, because I am going to be asking to get to this 
debate. I want a result. I think we should stop playing political 
football with this. If these two proposals fail tonight--which, 
unfortunately, I think is likely to happen since it is almost Groundhog 
Day again, since they are similar to two proposals we voted on in 
December, and we know what the result of that was: They both failed--I 
hope we can come together.
  I have talked about a good-faith, workable solution tonight that 
makes sense. I hope that on both sides of the aisle we can work 
together to get a result for the American people. We need to make sure 
we get something done and ensure terrorists cannot purchase firearms. 
But let's also make sure we continue to go after ISIS and defeat ISIS 
so they cannot inspire further attacks like this on our country. Let's 
also make sure that if there are gaps in our intelligence system--
because the FBI didn't follow up or should have followed up or they 
need more resources to follow these cases to their end--that we work 
together to address that as well because this was a horrific act of 
terrorism, and we need to treat it accordingly.
  It is my hope that we can work together on bipartisan solutions that 
will help keep the American people safe.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am pleased to follow my colleague 
and friend from New Hampshire, who served as attorney general of her 
State during part of the time that I served as attorney general in the 
State of Connecticut. We have in this body common ground in seeking 
more effective law enforcement solutions to all of the harm and 
unspeakable violence that has so plagued our Nation in recent years. 
But I cannot help but remark that we would not be having this debate 
but for an effort last week--in fact, a filibuster--that took the floor 
under the leadership of my great colleague and friend Senator Murphy, 
supported by Senator Booker and myself and then by tens of other 
Senators, to make sure that we debate and that we vote. Our feeling was 
that there should be no business as usual on this appropriations bill--
as important as it might be--in the wake of the terrorist extremist 
harm in Orlando.
  We demanded action because America is demanding action. We have been 
deluged before today, and I am sure that we will be deluged after, by 
Americans saying that the time has come for commonsense measures to 
stop gun violence inspired by ISIS or other terrorist extremists abroad 
and supported by them, as well as the homegrown terrorists and the lone 
wolf.
  During the 15 hours that we were on the floor, our offices were 
deluged by encouragement and support from Connecticut and from all 
around the country, joining us in saying: Enough is enough; the time 
for action is now. These were letters, tweets, Facebook posts, 
demonstrations, rallies, and other insistent cries for Congress to do 
its job and respond to this public health crisis, much as we would to 
any other epidemic. It is an epidemic that we face--an epidemic of gun 
violence.
  In Connecticut, we have a special understanding with the people of 
Orlando about what it is like to have a community go through such a 
horrible tragedy. We sought action in the wake of Newtown some years 
ago, and I am often asked: What now has changed since Newtown? What 
will make the difference? The reason I think we have reached a tipping 
point and why I think there has been a sea change and a critically 
important change in the dynamic here in the Senate is that we now know 
that these endless progressions of massacres, gang violence, domestic 
violence, and other gun crimes at every level will continue and, 
indeed, will rise in number and severity unless we act and, equally, if 
not more importantly, that the link to terrorist extremists abroad has 
become irretrievable. We know violent terrorists at home, inspired and 
supported by ISIS abroad, will continue to wreak havoc and take lives. 
They will continue to use AR-15s and semi-automatic assault weapons, 
which have been designed to kill and maim as many people as possible, 
as quickly as possible.
  We have become much better at stopping terrorists from carrying bombs 
onto planes because we adopted a no-fly list, and we have a terrorist 
watch list. Those AR-15s and other military-style assault weapons have 
now become the weapon of choice, rather than explosives. The form no 
longer preferred by terrorists is a plane. Now it is a nightclub, an 
office, a school, a church, or wherever people gather. There is no 
question that we need to take the fight to ISIS, as my colleague from 
New Hampshire has said, and it needs to be taken to ISIS more 
aggressively and effectively. But the Nation also needs to harden its 
defenses at home and to use information and intelligence that comes to 
us about people who are preparing, undertaking, or engaging actively in 
terrorist activity--as evidenced by fact, not mere speculation--and 
make sure that we are protected from them by stopping them from buying 
guns. With weapons that can be easily and legally purchased, one or two 
gunmen can wreak unimaginable havoc, killing and injuring hundreds of 
people in a matter of minutes. They need to be barred from buying guns. 
That is why I am supporting, strongly and enthusiastically, the 
proposal made by my colleague, Senator Feinstein, that embodies the 
basic principle: no fly, no gun. If you are too dangerous to be 
permitted on a plane, you should be deemed too dangerous to buy a gun. 
That is in no way to interfere with anybody's Second Amendment rights. 
I believe in the Second Amendment. It is the law of the land. There 
should be due process, as well, for anybody who is erroneously on any 
list.
  The Feinstein proposal, which I am pleased to cosponsor, would give 
the Attorney General of the United States the flexible authority to 
stop people who are on a compilation of lists--no fly, terrorist watch 
lists--or under investigation by the FBI 5 years previously from buying 
a gun. That is the basic principle that is at stake. It offers a strong 
hope. Indeed, it might well have prevented the shooter in Orlando from 
buying a gun, because he had been under investigation by the FBI in the 
previous 5 years.
  These measures are necessary to protect America. The alternative, the 
proposal made by Senator Cornyn, I believe is unworkable and 
ineffective. The government has to meet a probable cause standard and 
prove in a public proceeding, a trial, that standard is met. If an 
individual can be proved by probable cause to be sufficiently dangerous 
to be barred from a gun purchase, that person can be arrested. The 
Cornyn proposal, in effect, makes it more difficult to stop someone 
from buying a gun than to arrest them. So it seems to be that in most 
circumstances it would be ineffective--indeed, meaningless. To put it 
simply, the Cornyn amendment essentially adds nothing to the tools law 
enforcement already have. I have heard it described as a wolf in 
sheep's clothing. In my view, it is actually a sheep in wolf's 
clothing, with the pretense of being strong and effective in the fight 
of terrorism but in fact much less than meets the eye. Folks in law 
enforcement will know that investigations and analyses concerning 
highly complex and sensitive information that has to do with terrorism 
sometimes take time, and the 72-hour requirement placed an unrealistic 
and unworkable limit on the

[[Page S4340]]

United States. I want to emphasize again that none of this is to say 
that due process is to be deemed unimportant. In fact, anyone 
erroneously on this list ought to be provided with effective and speedy 
due process, which is what the Feinstein amendment does.
  We are also going to be voting on another pair of amendments 
addressed at the broader background check issue. I urge my colleagues 
to support the measure that I have led with my colleagues, Senator 
Murphy, Senator Schumer, and Senator Booker, which ensures that our 
background system works in the only rational way it should--by 
requiring everyone purchasing a firearm to undergo a background check. 
That background check process is necessary for any terrorist list to be 
effectively implemented, because otherwise there would be no way of 
knowing whether someone is on such a list. ``No fly, no gun'' is 
effective only if there is a list that can be enforced by review of 
background. These measures are supported by 90 percent of the American 
people or more. Everywhere I went over the weekend in Connecticut--Boys 
State convention sponsored by the American Legion in Winstead, the 
Branford Road Race for Father's Day, yesterday, the blessing of the 
fleet in Southport--Americans and the people of Connecticut have shown 
us that we must act. This Chamber is the place where there are 
speeches. It is often filled with words. Now is the time for action.
  An alternative to the Murphy-Schumer-Blumenthal-Booker amendment has 
been offered by Senator Grassley. Unfortunately, it would not only fail 
to fix the problem, but, in fact, it would worsen the status quo. It 
makes broad sweeping changes to portions of our gun laws that now 
prevent people with dangerous mental illnesses from obtaining weapons. 
This proposal would make an abrupt sweeping change to the definition 
that could result in many individuals currently prohibited from 
purchasing firearms suddenly being able to do so, even if they do in 
fact have conditions that make them dangerous to themselves or others.
  There is no single solution to the problem of extremist terrorism 
inspired or supported by ISIS or enemies abroad. We need to be mindful 
and aggressive and effective in countering. The link to terrorism 
abroad is undeniably seen at home. I want to commit that today is in a 
sense the beginning of a new chapter, when perhaps we can seek common 
ground in light of the sea change and the tipping point we have reached 
in this Nation. We can seek common ground on measures that are 
realistic. My quarrel with the Collins amendment is that it would, in 
fact, fail to cover 90 percent of the suspected terrorists who pose 
danger, and it would not have stopped the shooter in Orlando, as the 
Feinstein proposal might well have done.
  There is a basis for common ground. I am committed to seek it. We 
have not only the opportunity but the obligation to do more and to do 
it better. This effort will not be a sprint, as I said literally within 
days of the Newtown tragedy. It is an effort that requires continued 
work to stop assault weapons and AR-15s, which are weapons of war and 
mass destruction, to prevent illegal trafficking and straw purchases, 
to enact a mental health initiative and school safety measures, to 
prevent domestic violence from careening into gun violence, and to 
prevent the continued broad immunity unique to the gun industry under 
PLCAA. These steps will come in time because the American people are 
saying, as we said last week on the floor of the Senate: Enough is 
enough.
  The time is now for action. I thank my colleagues for supporting this 
effort and for their continuing support and, most importantly, the 
people of Connecticut who have been so generous and caring and most 
important for the survivors and victims who have shared their stories 
again and again. The face and voice of Newtown has been here through 
groups such as Sandy Hook Promise and Newtown Action Alliance. In the 
end, citizen activism will enable us to do more and do better to 
counter extremist violence and gun violence throughout America.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, before I yield to the Senator from 
California, I ask unanimous consent that she be recognized for up to 20 
minutes, and following that, that I be recognized for my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, reserving the right to object, may I ask 
for 10 minutes after my colleagues have spoken?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator modify his request?
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I am not sure I understood it. If it is 
10 minutes after I conclude my remarks, then I have no objection to 
that.
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If I may, Madam President, I thought what the Senator 
was proposing was that he would have 20 minutes and I would have 20 
minutes.
  Mr. CORNYN. Right.
  Mrs. BOXER. That is fine.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I will go first, and then he is going to do his 20 
minutes, and then Mrs. Boxer will speak.
  Mrs. BOXER. That is exactly what I asked.
  Mr. CORNYN. I have no objection to that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modified request?
  Mr. CORNYN. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I appreciate the Senator from Texas.


                           Amendment No. 4720

  Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the amendment to keep 
guns out of the hands of known or suspected terrorists. The Orlando 
attack again exposed a dangerous loophole in our law that allows known 
or suspected terrorists to legally purchase guns through the National 
Instant Criminal Background Check System, known as NICS. We call this 
loophole the terror gap. Let me explain what that means.
  There are currently 10 categories of people who are blocked from 
buying guns through the National Instant Criminal Background Check 
System, known as NICS, and here they are. They include felons, those 
under felony indictment, fugitives from justice, drug users or addicts, 
those committed to mental institutions or adjudicated as mentally 
defective, foreign nationals here unlawfully or those with nonimmigrant 
visas, such as temporary workers, those dishonorably discharged from 
the military, and those with a domestic violence restraining order.
  But one group that cannot be blocked from buying guns are those who 
are known or suspected terrorists on the FBI's consolidated terrorist 
watch list. They can buy guns, but certain aliens can't, dishonorably 
discharged can't, people of renounced citizenship can't, drug users 
can't, fugitives from justice, felons, et cetera, are the ones who 
cannot.
  We know that individuals on the watch list have exploited this 
loophole. According to FBI data, over the past 11 years, the success 
rate for known or suspected terrorists who undergo background checks to 
buy guns is 91 percent. So 91 percent of over 2,000 gun buyers were 
found by a GAO study to be able to purchase guns. Closing this 
dangerous loophole was first proposed by the Bush Justice Department in 
2007. In fact, we derived the language in our amendment from that 
original bill.
  Our amendment would give the Attorney General the authority to block 
a gun sale to known or suspected terrorists. It also provides an 
appeals process, both administrative and judicial. Let me read that 
language because it is derived out of the 2007 Bush Justice Department.
  ``The Attorney General may deny the transfer of [a] firearm if the 
Attorney General determines, based on the totality of circumstances, 
that the transferee represents a threat to public safety based on a 
reasonable suspicion that the transferee is engaged, or has been 
engaged, in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or 
related to terrorism, or providing material support or resources 
therefor.''
  That is from that bill.
  In order to ensure that FBI would be alerted in the case of an 
individual such as Omar Mateen, our amendment also includes language 
proposed by Senators Leahy and Nelson. This language would ensure that 
any suspected terrorist who tries to buy a gun within 5 years of being 
investigated for terrorism crimes would automatically trigger a 
notification to the Justice Department about the attempted purchase.

[[Page S4341]]

  As you know, in 2013 and 2014, the FBI conducted two inquiries on the 
Orlando gunman related to suspected terrorism. Even though the FBI was 
investigating him for possible terrorism, and at one point placed him 
on the FBI's terrorist watch list, it had no power to prevent him from 
purchasing weapons at a gun store.
  That is the key issue. It had no power to prevent him from purchasing 
a gun at a gun store. Had this amendment been in place, it would have 
allowed the Attorney General to know about the Orlando shooter's 
attempt to buy a Sig Sauer MCX assault rifle, and then investigate to 
determine whether to deny the gun based off this man's entire history.
  Let me now explain how the terrorist screening database, also known 
as the consolidated terrorist watch list, works. Under this amendment, 
the Attorney General would look to this database to identify a known or 
suspected terrorist. To be included in this database, the FBI must have 
a reasonable suspicion--based on a totality of circumstances and 
objective facts--that a person is a known or suspected terrorist. 
Information is derived from intelligence and law enforcement sources at 
home and abroad. To ensure that only individuals who pose a threat to 
national security are placed on this list, FBI Director Comey told the 
Intelligence Committee in February that information is thoroughly 
vetted.
  The FBI's process is also rigorously audited to reduce the number of 
false positives. There are approximately 1 million records in this 
database, but less than one-half of 1 percent are U.S. persons.
  This is the net. This is the terrorist screening database. This is 
the product of intelligence and law enforcement. It is scrutinized, and 
if it is worthy, it is placed on this database--1 million records 
maintained by the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center, fewer than 5,000 
U.S. persons. That is one-half of 1 percent.
  This is a targeted list that is carefully put together. It is focused 
on known or suspected terrorists believed to represent a risk to public 
safety.
  One thing I want to say, and I will repeat this when I discuss 
Senator Collins' bill, but many people confuse this list with the no-
fly list. The no-fly list is this dark blue center. It is 81,000 
records. It is maintained by the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center, and 
it has fewer than 1,000 persons.
  Then there is the selectee list. It is even smaller. It is 28,000 
records maintained by the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center--fewer than 
1,700 U.S. persons. But you can see, if you are going to have a net, 
the net has to be big enough. I am going to explain to you why in a 
moment.
  Our amendment also includes due process protections. It allows an 
individual who believes they were mistakenly denied a gun to learn the 
reason for the denial and appeal that decision, both administratively 
with the Justice Department and judicially. This is the same appeals 
process currently in place for anyone who believes they are wrongly 
denied a gun through the NICS database, which I just went through a few 
minutes ago.
  Let me speak about two Republican proposals, why I think they 
wouldn't work. I am delighted the Senator from Texas is on the floor. 
We both sit on the Judiciary Committee. I have had the pleasure of 
working with him for a number of years. But his amendment requires the 
probable cause standard to be met. That is a very high standard because 
if that standard is met, there is already enough evidence to arrest the 
person, search their home and car, seize their property, and indict the 
person.
  It is not a practical standard to block a gun purchase. It would just 
be an infinitesimal part of what is actually out there. The proposal 
also says that somebody should be entitled to a full-blown contested 
hearing with counsel, but if this hearing is not completed within 72 
hours, the gun sale goes through. The hearing would require the filing 
of an emergency petition, the service of process, the opportunity for 
the individual to get a lawyer, and then the actual full-blown hearing. 
This is nearly impossible to achieve within 72 hours, and if it isn't 
achieved, the terrorist gets the gun.
  Senator Collins has also circulated alternative language. I consider 
myself a friend of hers. I have great respect for her. We serve on the 
Intelligence Committee together. But my view is that her alternative is 
not enough to close the loophole that creates this terror gap and 
allows terrorists to buy guns.
  This alternative would focus on narrow parts of the database. This 
no-fly list--you can see how small it is--and the selectee list, which 
is here--the selectee list includes those persons who can fly but who 
receive additional screening before boarding a plane.
  Focusing so narrowly on these two smaller lists is not enough, and I 
would like to tell you why. It would leave out a huge number of known 
or suspected terrorists--one, as you can see. I have gone through that. 
I have gone through the no-fly list. If we were to focus only on the 
no-fly list and the selectee list, we would be leaving out 891,000 
foreign nationals--names given to us by law enforcement, intelligence 
sources, both here and among our allies--who are on the terrorist watch 
list and approximately 2,300 U.S. persons determined by the FBI to be 
known or suspected terrorists. Focusing on the smaller lists leaves out 
close to 90 percent of known or suspected terrorists, covering both 
U.S. persons and foreigners.
  I remind my colleagues, you don't need to be a U.S. person to legally 
buy guns in this country. That makes it important to understand how 
this list is larger. Let me give you an example. Travelers using the 
Visa Waiver Program can legally buy guns. There are 20 million 
travelers in that program annually, and more than 100,000 of them don't 
go home when they should.
  Now I would like to share one example where a known or suspected 
terrorist was on the FBI's radar but likely had not been placed on the 
no-fly list. Over the weekend, my staff went through 86 cases and 
pulled out some of them. I have them here, and at this time I would 
like to mention one.
  Nader Saadeh, a U.S. citizen, was radicalized and became a devoted 
follower of ISIL. The FBI received a critical tip about Saadeh in April 
of 2015. The tip included a detailed account of his radicalization and 
support of ISIL. This is all available in a 13-page criminal 
complaint. In May, Saadeh flew from New York City to Jordan. He was 
detained and later arrested by the FBI. Here is someone who clearly met 
the definition of a known or suspected terrorist but was permitted to 
fly out of a major U.S. airport in the city where the 9/11 attacks 
occurred. This shows the danger of focusing only on narrow subsets of 
the terrorist watch list. To me, that just doesn't make sense.

  There is broad support for our amendment, including more than 260 
organizations and community leaders around the country.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the list be added to 
the Congressional Record directly following my remarks.
  The Justice Department and the White House support this amendment. 
They believe it is a workable approach to help prevent terrorists from 
obtaining weapons. We worked with the Justice Department, and the 
Justice Department made some additions to our amendment. They released 
a statement of support. I will read it in part: ``This amendment gives 
the Justice Department an important additional tool to prevent the sale 
of guns to suspected terrorists by licensed firearms dealers while 
ensuring protection of the department's operational and investigative 
sensitivities.''
  Thirty-eight Senators have cosponsored the amendment, including 
Republican Senator Mark Kirk, making it bipartisan.
  Closing the terror loophole gap is an important step, but it isn't 
enough. Let me explain why. Today, you can buy a gun at a gun show 
without a background check. As a matter of fact, my chief of staff, a 
woman, was pursued at a gun show to buy a .50-caliber rifle, which is a 
sniper rifle from which a bullet can travel for a mile and still go 
through a brick wall. You can buy a gun on the Internet without a 
background check. You can buy a gun on the private market without a 
background check. That is why we must pass the amendment offered by 
Senators Murphy, Schumer, Booker, and Blumenthal. This would ensure 
that guns sold at gun shows, over the Internet, and from person to 
person are subject to background checks. If we don't also make that 
change, known or suspected terrorists will still be able to

[[Page S4342]]

buy guns at gun shows with no questions asked.
  Now, with ISIL intent on perpetrating and inspiring attacks in this 
country, there is an increased urgency to make it harder for terrorists 
to get their hands on guns. To me, this isn't a gun control issue. It 
is really a national security issue. If there is any doubt about that, 
let me briefly share a portion of CIA Director John Brennan's remarks 
from last week's open hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee. He 
said:

       We judge that ISIL is training and attempting to deploy 
     operatives for further attacks. ISIL has a large cadre of 
     Western fighters who could potentially serve as operatives 
     for attacks in the West. The group is probably exploring a 
     variety of means for infiltrating operatives into the West, 
     including refugee flows, smuggling routes, and legitimate 
     methods of travel.
       Further, as we have seen in Orlando, San Bernardino, and 
     elsewhere, ISIL is attempting to inspire attacks by 
     sympathizers who have no direct links to the group. Last 
     month for example, a senior ISIL figure publicly urged the 
     group's followers to conduct attacks in their home countries 
     if they were unable to travel to Syria and Iraq.

  Those are the words of the head of the world's most prominent 
intelligence agency. We should heed those words. We know ISIL adherents 
and sympathizers are already inside the United States. In fact, since 
March of 2014, Federal prosecutors have charged 86 men and women around 
the country in connection with the Islamic State, and 36 have been 
convicted. We also know that terrorists are well aware just how weak 
our gun laws are and that they urge their followers to exploit them.
  In 2011, a man by the name of Adam Gadahn, an Al Qaeda spokesman--he 
is actually an American who went to Syria and was a suicide bomber--
urged terrorists to take advantage of our weak gun laws. Gadahn stated 
on the Internet: ``America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable 
firearms.''
  This bears repeating. Terrorist groups--like Al Qaeda, ISIL, al-
Nusra, and others--know that our gun laws are weak and can be 
exploited.
  We can't continue to do nothing in the face of such potential death 
and potential devastation. I have been fighting to reduce gun violence 
throughout my career, since my days as a county supervisor and as mayor 
of San Francisco. I know how difficult it is to make changes because 
the opposition is so extreme and opposes any measure to curtail gun 
violence--no matter what it is. It was against all odds that the 
assault weapons legislation passed in 1994, and the gun lobby fought 
hard not only to defeat the amendment, which succeeded, but to defeat 
those in the House who supported it, and that started its own reign of 
terror.
  When the Brady background check passed in 1993, multiple cloture 
motions on the bill failed before it ultimately passed with 63 votes, 
but that bill did not cover sales at gun shows, private sales, or 
Internet sales, which have increased significantly.
  After the Newtown shooting, I thought we would do something to stem 
the tide of these weapons. We tried.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I am just about finished. I ask 
unanimous consent for an additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, we tried to renew the ban on assault 
weapons, but that failed. We tried to expand the background check, even 
through a compromise offered by Senator Manchin, but that effort 
failed. I remember that when the vote on the background check failed, 
the New York Daily News put the photos of the Newtown victims on the 
front cover. There were 20 young children, ages 6 and 7, and their 
educators, and the headline read: ``For Shame.''
  It is time for us to stand up. It is time to force elected 
representatives to take action. We must expand background checks. We 
must make sure that the government can stop a gun from being sold to a 
known or suspected terrorist, and that is not too much to ask.
  I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                           List of Supporters


                     law enforcement organizations

       Department of Justice (DOJ), Prosecutors Against Gun 
     Violence, International Association of Chiefs of Police, Los 
     Angeles County Police Chiefs' Association, Police Executive 
     Research Forum (PERF), The National Law Enforcement 
     Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence, Commission on 
     Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc. (CALEA), 
     Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association 
     (HAPCOA), International Association of Campus Law Enforcement 
     Administrators (IACLEA), Major Cities Chiefs Association 
     (MCC), National Association of Women Law Enforcement 
     Executives (NAWLEE), National Organization of Black Law 
     Enforcement Executives (NOBLE), Police Foundation, Women in 
     Federal Law Enforcement, Inc. (WIFLE).


                               gun safety

       Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence united with the 
     Million Mom March, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Campaign 
     to Unload, Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Sandy Hook 
     Promise, Newtown Action Alliance, Americans for Responsible 
     Solutions, Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, Faiths 
     United to Prevent Gun Violence, Wisconsin Anti-Violence 
     Effort (WAVE), CeaseFirePA, North Carolinians Against Gun 
     Violence (NCGV), Iowans for Gun Safety, Arizonans for Gun 
     Safety (AzGS), Women Against Gun Violence (WAGV), Colorado 
     Ceasefire Legislative Action, Delaware Coalition Against Gun 
     Violence (DeCAGV), Georgians for Gun Safety (GGS), Hawaii 
     Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence, Hoosiers Concerned About 
     Gun Violence (HCGV), Maine Gun Safety Coalition, Marylanders 
     to Prevent Gun Violence, Stop Handgun Violence, Connecticut 
     Against Gun Violence (CAGV), Michigan Coalition to Prevent 
     Gun Violence, Everytown for Gun Safety, Greenwich Council 
     Against Gun Violence.
       Missouri and Kansas Grandparents Against Gun Violence, 
     Nebraskans Against Gun Violence (NAGV), New Mexicans to 
     Prevent Gun Violence (NMPGV), New Yorkers Against Gun 
     Violence (NYAGV), Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence 
     (OCAGV), National Cathedral Gun Violence Prevention Group, OK 
     GunSense, Ceasefire Oregon, Rhode Island Coalition Against 
     Gun Violence (RICAGV), Safe Tennessee Project, Texas Gun 
     Sense, Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah, Virginia 
     Center for Public Safety, Washington CeaseFire, States United 
     to Prevent Gun Violence, Stop Our Shootings, Violence Policy 
     Center (VPC), Protect Minnesota, Gun Free Businesses, 
     Virginia GVP Coalition, ART = AMMO Artists Against Gun 
     Violence.


                               religious

       San Francisco Interfaith Council (SFIC), Orthodox Union 
     Advocacy Center, The Rabbinical Assembly (RA), Baptist Peace 
     Fellowship of North America (BPFNA), Catholics in Alliance 
     for the Common Good, National Council of Jewish Women (NCJW), 
     Rabbis Against Gun Violence, Jewish Women International 
     (JWI), Union for Reform Judaism (URJ), Hadassah, The Women's 
     Zionist Organization of America, Washington National 
     Cathedral.


                          other organizations

       The United States Conference of Mayors, American Bar 
     Association (ABA), Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), 
     Center for American Progress (CAP), CODEPINK: Women for 
     Peace, Vote Vets.org, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights 
     of Los Angeles (CHIRLA), Generation Progress Action Network, 
     Safe Campus Colorado, Black American Political Association of 
     California (BAPAC), Sierra Club, California Latino Water 
     Coalition (CLWC), Grandmothers for Peace International, 
     Equality California, GLBT Historical Society, Joint Action 
     Committee for Political Affairs (JAC), Battle Born 
     Progress, Majority Ohio Action Fund, UltraViolet, Larkin 
     Street Youth Services, Cure Violence, Futures Without 
     Violence.


                      education and child welfare

       American Federation of Teachers (AFT), Every Child Matters, 
     Children's Defense Fund (CDF), National Association of Social 
     Workers (NASW), Child Welfare League of America (CWLA), 
     National Education Association (NEA).


                        law enforcement leaders

       Jackie Lacey, District Attorney, Los Angeles County, Mike 
     Feuer, City Attorney, City of Los Angeles, Charlie Beck, 
     Chief of Police, City of Los Angeles, Jim McDonnell, Sheriff, 
     Los Angeles County, Toney Chaplin, Chief of Police, City of 
     San Francisco, Jarrod Burguan, Chief of Police, City of San 
     Bernardino, Ed Davis, Former Police Commissioner, City of 
     Boston, Eric Jones, Chief of Police, City of Stockton, Jerry 
     Dyer, Chief of Police, City of Fresno, Robert Castro, Chief 
     of Police, City of Glendale, Jim Smith, Chief of Police, City 
     of Monterey Park, Cliff Mar, Interim Chief of Police, City of 
     Alhambra, Robert T. Guthrie, Chief of Police, City of 
     Arcadia, Sam Gonzalez, Chief of Police, City of Azusa, Ed 
     Dadisho, Chief of Police, City of Bell, Robert Barnes, Chief 
     of Police, City of Bell Gardens, Sandra Spagnoli, Chief of 
     Police, City of Beverly Hills, Scott LaChasse, Chief of 
     Police, City of Burbank, Paul Cooper, Chief of Police, City 
     of Claremont, Kim Raney, Chief of Police, City of Covina, 
     Scott Bixby, Chief of Police, City of Culver City, Carl 
     Charles, Chief of Police, City of Downey, Mitch Tavera, Chief 
     of Police, City of El Segundo,

[[Page S4343]]

     Edward Medrano, Chief of Police, City of Gardena, Sharon 
     Papa, Chief of Police, City of Hermosa Beach.
       Cosme Lozano, Chief of Police, City of Huntington Park, 
     Mark Fronterotta, Chief of Police, City of Inglewood, Anthony 
     Miranda, Chief of Police, City of Irwindale, Scott Pickwith, 
     Chief of Police, City of La Verne, Jim Hunt, Chief of Police, 
     City of Monrovia, Kevin McClure, Chief of Police, City of 
     Montebello, Jeff Kepley, Chief of Police, City of Palos 
     Verdes, Phillip Sanchez, Chief of Police, City of Pasadena, 
     Paul Capraro, Chief of Police, City of Pomona, Keith 
     Kauffman, Chief of Police, City of Redondo Beach, David 
     Lawton, Chief of Police, City of San Gabriel, John Incontro, 
     Chief of Police, City of San Marino, Larry Giannone, Chief of 
     Police, City of Sierra Madre, Michael Langston, Chief of 
     Police, City of Signal Hill, Randy Davis, Chief of Police, 
     City of South Gate, Mark Matsuda, Chief of Police, City of 
     Torrance, Daniel Calleros, Chief of Police, City of Vernon, 
     Jeff Piper, Chief of Police, City of Whittier, David 
     Bejarano, Chief of Police, City of Chula Vista, Ian 
     Parkinson, Sheriff, San Luis Obispo County, Adam 
     Christianson, Sheriff, Stanislaus County, Lisa Smittcamp, 
     District Attorney, Fresno County.


                      california community leaders

       CA Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom, CA Assembly Speaker 
     Emeritus Toni Atkins, CA State Senator Dr. Ed Hernandez, CA 
     Assemblymember Dr. Joaquin Arambula, Mayor Edwin M. Lee, City 
     of San Francisco, Mayor R. Carey Davis, City of San 
     Bernardino, Mayor Casey Tanaka, City of Coronado, CA Assembly 
     Majority Floor Leader Ian Calderon, Supervisor John Benoit, 
     Riverside County, Mayor Sam Liccardo, City of San Jose, Mayor 
     Libby Schaaf, City of Oakland, Councilmember Lindsey Horvath, 
     West Hollywood City Council, Chancellor Dr. Francisco 
     Rodriguez, Los Angeles Community College District, CA 
     Assemblymember Cristina Garcia, Mayor Serge Dedina, City of 
     Imperial Beach, Mayor Mary Casillas Salas, City of Chula 
     Vista, Mayor Mary Teresa Sessom, City of Lemon Grove, Mayor 
     Alma Beltran, City of Parlier, Mayor Sylvia Chavez, City of 
     Huron, Mayor David Cardenas, City of Fowler, Supervisor Bruce 
     Gibson, San Luis Obispo County, Mayor Victor Lopez, City of 
     Orange Cove.
       Mayor Robert Silva, City of Mendota, CA Assemblymember Mike 
     Gipson, Caucus Chair, CA Assemblymember Miguel Santiago, 
     Majority Whip, CA Assemblymember Kevin McCarty, CA 
     Assemblymember Phil Ting, CA Assemblymember Rob Bonta, CA 
     Assemblymember Marc Levine, CA State Senator Lois Wolk, 
     Mayor-Elect Darrell Steinberg, City of Sacramento, 
     Councilmember Esmeralda Soria, Fresno City Council, CA State 
     Senator Kevin de Leon, CA State Senator Bill Monning, CA 
     State Senator Bob Wieckowski, CA State Senator Fran Pavley, 
     CA State Senator Marty Block, CA State Senator Tony 
     Mendoza, CA State Senator Bob Hertzberg, CA State Senator 
     Jerry Hill, CA State Senator Carol Liu, CA State Senator 
     Benjamin Allen, CA State Senator Jim Beall, CA State 
     Senator Ben Hueso, CA State Senator Isabel Hall III, CA 
     State Senator Steven Glazer, CA State Senator Mike 
     McGuire, CA State Senator Connie Leyva, CA State Senator 
     Richard Pan, CA State Senator Mark Leno, CA State Senator 
     Hannah-Beth Jackson, CA State Senator Ricardo Lara, CA 
     State Senator Loni Hancock.


                                 health

       Catholic Health Association of the United States, 
     Physicians for Social Responsibility, American Public Health 
     Association, Association for Ambulatory Behavioral 
     Healthcare, American Pediatric Association, American Academy 
     of Pediatrics, American Association of Child and Adolescent 
     Psychiatry, American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy, 
     Academic Consortium for Integrative Medicine and Health, 
     American College of Physicians, American College of 
     Preventive Medicine, The American Geriatrics Society, 
     American Medical Student Association, American Medical 
     Women's Association, American Pediatric Society and the 
     Society for Pediatric Research, American Psychological 
     Association (APA), American Public Health Association (APHA), 
     American Society of Hematology, American Thoracic Society 
     (ATS), Association of American Medical Colleges, Association 
     of Maternal & Child Health Programs (AAMCHP), Association of 
     Medical School Pediatric Department Chairs, Association of 
     State and Territorial Health Officials, Big Cities Health 
     Coalition, California Chapter of the American College of 
     Emergency Physicians, Care for the Homeless, Delaware Academy 
     of Medicine/Delaware Public Health Association, Doctors 
     Council SEIU, Doctors for America, Foundation for Healthy 
     Generations, Global Healthy Living Foundation, HealthHIV, 
     National Association of County and City Health Officials, 
     National AHEC Organization, National Association of State 
     Head Injury Administrators.
       National Coalition for LGBT Health, National Health Care 
     for the Homeless Council, National Hispanic Health 
     Foundation, National Hispanic Medical Association, National 
     Medical Association, National Network of Public Health 
     Institutes, National Physicians Alliance, Pediatric Policy 
     Council, Physicians for Prevention of Gun Violence, 
     Physicians for Reproductive Health, Prevention Institute, 
     Public Health Institute, Research!America, Suicide Awareness 
     Voices of Education (SAVE), School-Based Health Alliance, 
     Society for Public Health Education (SOPHE), Society of 
     General Internal Medicine (SGIM), Student National Medical 
     Association (SNMA), The Koop Institute, Trust for America's 
     Health.


                               localities

       City of Solana Beach, California, San Diego Unified School 
     District.


                              individuals

       Jim Gray, Candidate for U.S. Senate, Kentucky, Dannel P. 
     Malloy, Governor, Connecticut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                           Amendment No. 4749

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, as to the two main amendments that we 
will hear about tonight regarding the no-fly list, the watch list, or 
the known suspected terrorist list, we agree that terrorists should not 
have guns. Terrorists should not have guns. The only difference between 
the amendment of the Senator from California and my amendment is that 
once the gun purchase was stopped, under her amendment the bad guy 
walks away, and like the bombers who used the makeshift bomb in 
Massachusetts or some other device, they would be able to go buy guns 
illegally or create some other weapon of mass destruction and commit 
terrorist acts. My amendment would make sure that the law enforcement 
officials were notified on a timely basis, and then they would have up 
to 3 additional days to go to court and show probable cause to get a 
wiretap to listen to phone conversations, to execute search warrants to 
get additional information, and then to go before a judge and not just 
to deny access to the firearm but to take the terrorists off the 
street. Actually, in many ways, the amendment of my friend from 
California would not be as tough on the terrorists as mine would be.
  We really should not be focusing on restricting the rights of law-
abiding citizens under the Second Amendment without due process of law. 
That is what the Feinstein amendment does. We ought to be asking 
ourselves if there are those in this Chamber who believe you can deny 
American citizens their constitutional rights without due process of 
law based on a secret list that the government maintains. I don't care 
who it is. Whether it is the Obama administration or the former Bush 
administration, I don't think any American should sacrifice their 
constitutional rights without forcing the government to go to an 
impartial magistrate or judge and be able to show sufficient evidence 
to convince the judge that they have the evidence to deny those 
constitutional rights. This is really surreal to me.
  Our colleagues want to make this about gun control when what we 
should be making this about is the fight to eliminate the Islamic 
extremism that is the root cause for what happened in Orlando. My 
colleagues, in many ways, want to treat the symptoms without fighting 
the disease. There is absolutely nothing in the Feinstein amendment 
that would have prevented the Orlando shooting from occurring--nothing.
  Conversely, under my amendment, the FBI would be immediately notified 
of anybody who was or had been on a watch list during the preceding 5 
years, and this would obviously escalate the investigation. The FBI 
could go to court, get a search warrant, get a wiretap, after getting 
the appropriate waivers, and get the sort of evidence necessary to 
detain or arrest, in other words, the terrorists rather than just deny 
them access to a firearm. If they are too dangerous to buy a firearm, 
they are too dangerous to be loose on our streets.
  The Boston Marathon bombers, which I mentioned a moment ago, the San 
Bernardino jihadists, and the ISIS-inspired radicals in Garland, TX, 
are all examples of the fact that Islamic extremists want the American 
people to trade our liberties and values for fear and panic.
  CIA Director John Brennan made it clear last week that this threat 
from ISIS, or the Islamic State, is not going away. He said that the 
President and just about every other member of the administration have 
refused to acknowledge that the administration's efforts ``have not 
reduced the group's terrorism capability and global reach.''
  Each time an attack has happened, my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle want to make this about their

[[Page S4344]]

gun control agenda. We can have that debate, but to act like this is a 
substitute for dealing with the threat of ISIS, either abroad or here 
at home through radicalization of American citizens using social media 
and the Internet, is just a diversion.
  I think all we need to do is to look at what the administration 
decided on the 911 transcripts from Orlando. Originally, they said they 
were going to redact those transcripts. Well, I am glad they had a 
chance to reconsider it because this reveals what was going on in that 
nightclub in Orlando. This reveals what the motivation was of the 
shooter. This wasn't just some street crime incident. This was a 
premeditated terrorist attack on American soil. Failing to release the 
complete 911 tapes would have been an affront not only to any promise 
of open government--and the administration said they were going to be 
the most open, transparent government in American history--but it would 
be an insult to the American people. You can't redact away the hurt and 
pain that so many are feeling from the loss of loved ones or the loss 
of a sense of security. You can't redact away the reality that a hate-
filled killer pledged his allegiance to a terrorist organization before 
killing 49 Americans.
  I still believe one of the administration's goals is to avoid any 
discussion about their failed strategy to combat radical Islamic 
terrorism either abroad or here at home. Instead, they decided to pivot 
and limit Americans' constitutional rights without due process of law.
  If they can do that to the Second Amendment, can they do it to the 
First Amendment? How about the Fourth or Fifth Amendment? How many more 
provisions of the Bill of Rights do our Democratic friends believe can 
be denied, absent due process of law or forcing the government to go in 
front of an impartial judge and actually producing some evidence? We 
are indeed facing a serious threat from radical terrorism, both 
overseas and at home, and if we can't be honest and clear-eyed about 
who is attacking us, how in the world do we have any chance to defeat 
them? Because that needs to be our ultimate goal--to degrade and 
ultimately destroy ISIS.

  We all agree that terrorists should not be able to purchase a weapon. 
That is not up for debate, and anybody who suggests that it is, is 
simply misleading you. The question before us is whether we are going 
to do so in a way that is constitutional. The question before us is, 
Are we going to do it in a way that would actually improve terrorist 
investigations or not?
  My amendment is called the SHIELD Act, and it would stop terrorists 
from buying guns while ensuring that law-abiding citizens placed on a 
watch list by mistake don't have their rights taken away because of 
some secret list created by the Obama administration or by this 
government. And it will also--this is important--it will also set up a 
process to monitor, investigate, and detain terrorists where warranted 
by evidence. In that way, my proposal is far and away stronger than the 
proposal of the senior Senator from California for several reasons.
  First, her amendment is unconstitutional. Last week I mentioned the 
problems that the late Senator Teddy Kennedy had when his name came up 
on a watch list by mistake. He was denied a ticket at an airport on one 
of his trips between Washington and Boston. After realizing the 
problem, he had a lot of trouble getting it resolved. And you can bet, 
if Teddy Kennedy had trouble getting it resolved, what kind of a chance 
does an average American have? He said as much. He said: Now, if they 
have that kind of difficulty for a Member of Congress, how in the world 
are average Americans, getting caught up in this kind of thing, going 
to be able to get treated fairly and not have their rights abused?
  Senator Kennedy asked the question we all need to be asking right 
now. If a well-known, well-connected, and powerful public figure like 
Ted Kennedy had trouble getting his name removed from a watch list, do 
we have any confidence that average Americans won't have their 
constitutional rights denied with no legal process to remedy it? Our 
friends across the aisle wouldn't provide due process for law-abiding 
citizens placed on a watch list by mistake, like the late Senator 
Kennedy, and mine would.
  Secondly, the Feinstein amendment has another fatal flaw. There are 
no additional tools for law enforcement to monitor, investigate, and 
detain suspected terrorists. My proposal not only stops them from 
buying a gun, it would take them off the streets.
  FBI Director Comey has testified before the Senate that legislation 
that merely blocks a firearm transfer to a person on a watch list, 
without more, could actually disrupt a terrorism investigation. That is 
because if we automatically block the transfer, then it would tip the 
suspected terrorists that law enforcement is watching them and building 
a case, and they would simply turn to some other weapon, either illegal 
or manufactured. This could have tragic consequences, as a terrorist 
could take immediate steps to speed up their attack, obtain illegal 
weapons, as I said, or bomb-making materials, all the while thwarting 
law enforcement surveillance.
  We need to be careful about enacting legislation that could, in the 
words of the FBI Director, effectively blow a terrorism investigation. 
No matter how well-intentioned, I believe that would be the effect of 
Senator Feinstein's amendment.
  The truth is, under that amendment a motivated terrorist could buy a 
gun, be denied, then walk out of the gun shop and find another avenue 
to carry out a terrorist attack. By letting a dangerous terrorist roam 
free on the streets, the proposal of our Democratic friends would make 
us less safe, not more.
  My legislation, in contrast, would not only block that person from 
buying a firearm because the FBI would be immediately notified and they 
wouldn't be able to take it with them--they would have to wait at least 
3 days while the FBI conducted an additional investigation--it would 
also allow the authorities the opportunity to carry out that 
investigation, followed by an expedited court hearing where a judge 
could block the sale and authorize the arrest of the terrorist if, in 
fact, there was some evidence to prove that was the case. If the judge 
deems there is probable cause to block the sale, the terrorist can be 
immediately detained by law enforcement.
  I repeat myself: If someone is dangerous enough not to own a firearm, 
aren't they also dangerous enough to be taken off the streets? The 
amendment of the Senator from California would let the bad guy go.
  In this way, my proposal goes much further than our Democratic 
friends who have to do more to prevent terrorists from buying guns, and 
we have to lock them up and stop them before they kill innocent 
Americans too.
  Importantly, my amendment would apply to anyone who was previously 
under an investigation for suspicion of terrorism within the last 5 
years, like the Orlando attacker. The Orlando attacker wasn't even on 
the watch list, so I don't know what my friend from California is 
trying to propose here by saying that if you are on a watch list, you 
ought to be denied a gun. But I guess she is saying that even if you 
are not on a watch list, you ought to be denied a gun. We have said 
that if you have been on a watch list for the last 5 years, then the 
FBI would be provided notice.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, will the Senator yield for just one 
forward comment? Our bill does the same thing.
  Mr. CORNYN. I will yield to the Senator after my remarks. I am almost 
through.
  When similar proposals were offered in December, the amendment from 
the senior Senator from California didn't even get a majority of votes 
in this body. My related proposal back in December was bipartisan and 
garnered 55 votes.
  I am glad the junior Senator from Indiana and the junior Senator from 
West Virginia--both Democrats--supported that bill then, and I hope 
they will do so again. Both made the decision to do what was right 
instead of what was politically convenient. The due process clause of 
the U.S. Constitution is more than just a convenience; it is, after 
all, our Constitution. Senators pledge to uphold and defend the 
Constitution of the United States, but then to vote for an amendment 
that would deny constitutional rights without due process of law--it 
sure seems intentioned with that oath.

[[Page S4345]]

  We must advance commonsense legislation to defend ourselves against 
Islamic extremism, and I believe my amendment is a good place to start.
  It is not the only idea. The Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, and the 
Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Toomey, have some interesting ideas that 
I know they would like to develop and have a chance perhaps to vote on, 
but in the meantime, we need to do more to equip the FBI with the law 
enforcement tools they need to gather information on terrorists so that 
we can lock them up, and we have to be able to collect the dots before 
we can connect the dots.
  I hope today my colleagues vote for my amendment. It blocks 
terrorists from buying guns, it detains terrorists if there is evidence 
to prove sufficient to satisfy a judge that they should be taken off 
the streets, and it upholds the Second Amendment to the Constitution of 
the United States.
  Again, the question before us couldn't be clearer. We are going to 
vote on two proposals, both of which stop terrorists from buying guns. 
One is constitutional; one is not. I would strongly urge my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle to support the one that is 
constitutional, and that would be the SHIELD Act, or the Cornyn 
amendment.
  I yield to the Senator for a question.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, it is my belief that our amendment 
does cover the--Senator Leahy and Senator Nelson submitted to us an 
amendment, which is incorporated, which does cover the Orlando killer. 
I wanted the Senator to know that.
  Thank you very much.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I would say to my friend from 
California, the problem in this instance is this shooter was a licensed 
security guard. He was guarding a courthouse. He also had a firearms 
license from the State of Florida. So there is nothing about her 
amendment that would have prevented him from purchasing a firearm. 
Indeed, the only thing that might have happened would be that the FBI 
would be notified under the 5-year lookback provision, but the FBI had 
already conducted two investigations of this particular shooter and had 
cleared him, notwithstanding all of the troubling signals we see now in 
retrospect. So I still believe there is nothing in the Feinstein 
amendment that would have prevented this shooter from purchasing 
firearms because he had a firearms license already and had previously 
been cleared by two FBI investigations and taken off the watch list.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, what is the order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has up to 10 
minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. OK. I understand that Senator Nelson wants some time and 
Senator Murphy wants some time. May I ask through the Chair how much 
time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is not equally divided.
  Mrs. BOXER. Let me suggest, then, that after I finish on our side, 
that Senator Nelson be followed by Senator Murphy at times they can 
work out on our side and Senator Grassley in between--for how many 
minutes?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. You guys want to take up all the time; is that what you 
want to do?
  Mrs. BOXER. I didn't say that, no, sir.
  Madam President, I think we will let everyone work it out, but I know 
I have 10 minutes, so I will take that time at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you, Madam President.
  First, I thank my colleague Senator Feinstein for her decades of work 
to address gun violence. I also thank Senators Murphy, Blumenthal, and 
Booker for standing on their feet for almost 15 hours to force the 
Republican leadership to at least allow some votes on gun safety.
  Six months after we joined the Senate, Senator Feinstein and I--this 
was in 1993--learned the horrific impacts of assault weapons when a 
deranged gunman entered the law offices of 101 California Street in San 
Francisco and killed eight people and wounded six others. When you lose 
someone you know to gun violence, it is very hard to get that out of 
your soul. And one of those killed in that attack in a law office with 
an assault weapon was one of my son's best friends. Yes, the soul of 
our family and his family and all the other families who were gunned 
down--I will tell you this: The pain does not go away. And I know we 
all feel that. I know we all feel that. The question is, ``What are we 
going to do about it?'' If not now, when is the time to do something 
about it?
  After Orlando--the worst mass shooting in American history--and I see 
my friend Senator Nelson, who has been there and who has looked into 
the eyes of families, and he will never be the same, having done that.
  This is a moment for us to do the right thing, to finally take 
action. Is it going to stop everything in the future? No. But it is a 
crisis, so we have to do what we can do. We should have done it after 
San Bernardino, we should have done it after Sandy Hook, and we should 
have done it after Santa Barbara and Aurora, but we didn't, so let's do 
it now.
  By the end of this year, 30,000 Americans will have died from gun 
violence. In 10 years, roughly 300,000 Americans are killed by guns--
300,000.
  We lost more than 4,000 after 10 years in Iraq and nearly 60,000 
after 10 years in Vietnam. Losing those incredibly large numbers of 
soldiers--64,000, roughly, in 10 years of those two wars--tore our 
Nation apart. It tore our Nation apart. But we lose 300,000 Americans 
from gun violence over 10 years and my Republican friends do nothing. 
That is the hard, cold truth. They claim they want to do something, 
but, as Senator Feinstein pointed out, when we look at the bottom line 
of their proposals, they essentially do nothing. And the gun epidemic 
continues.
  How many times do we come to the Senate floor to send our thoughts 
and prayers to families, but we don't do anything of substance to back 
those prayers up--not since my colleague got through her assault 
weapons ban. Since then we have done nothing, and that was in the 
1990s.
  Unfortunately, I was just on the floor in December after a mass 
shooting at a holiday party that killed 14 people and wounded 17 others 
in San Bernardino. I stood right here, and I begged for us to come 
together and pass sensible laws to prevent another community from the 
gut-wrenching heartbreak my state was going through. That was just six 
months ago. We did nothing.
  I was on the floor after a mass shooting in Santa Barbara in 2014, 
and I called for us to pass a pause that gives family and friends who 
fear their loved ones are going to use a gun in a dangerous way--to 
give them a way to temporarily stop that loved one from obtaining a gun 
and do it legally through a court hearing. California passed that law. 
We did nothing--no action.
  When is it finally going to happen? When are we going to do 
something?
  I would urge every single person watching this debate to watch the 
votes. The only two proposals that do anything are the Feinstein 
proposal and the Murphy proposal. One deals with keeping guns out of 
the hands of terrorists; the other makes sure that people who buy a gun 
at a gun show or a private transaction get a background check.
  Should terrorists have guns? Every one of us says: Oh, no.
  Do we need to defeat ISIS? Yes, they are one of the most brutal, 
vicious terrorist groups, and that is why I support the President's 
actions to take them out. I was glad to see the Iraqis recapture 
Fallujah from ISIS, but that doesn't stop the lone wolves over here. We 
need to make sure those lone wolves don't get a gun.
  Should mentally unstable people have guns? No. We need to address 
that.
  Should weapons of war be allowed on our streets? Even the inventor of 
the assault-style weapon--his family said he never meant it to be used 
on the streets. It is a weapon of war. Those weapons have no business 
being in civilian hands.
  Today we have some good news out of the Supreme Court. They refused 
to take up a case that challenged the assault weapons ban in 
Connecticut. That is good news. It follows the legal opinions we have 
seen from the Court that say: Yes, there is a right to bear arms, but, 
yes, you can have commonsense gun laws so that people who can

[[Page S4346]]

be trusted get a weapon and those who cannot, do not. Responsible 
people should be able to get a gun and pass a background check.
  What happened in the world? Look at this chart. Do you see this big 
huge line? That is America. These are the rest of all the 
industrialized nations in terms of gun deaths. We know that tough gun 
safety laws around the world save lives.
  Germany tightened their laws and shooting deaths dropped in half from 
106 in 2002 to 61 in 2012 after they acted. In Australia, after they 
acted, gun deaths dropped from 98 in 1996 to 35 in 2014--after they 
took action.
  In my home State of California, there was a 56 percent drop in gun 
violence between 1993 and 2010, according to the Law Center to Prevent 
Gun Violence, because our State took action. According to Johns 
Hopkins, Connecticut also saw an estimated 40-percent drop in gun-
related murders in 10 years because they passed a 1995 law requiring a 
license before a gun purchase.
  No, we can't prevent every single tragedy, but we can respect the 
Second Amendment and still pass commonsense gun safety laws.
  We should pass Senator Feinstein's amendment to prevent a suspected 
terrorist from buying firearms or explosives, and we should pass 
Senator Murphy's amendment requiring background checks for all firearms 
sold or transferred privately.
  There are 30,000 reasons to pass these amendments--one for every 
American who will die by year's end because of gun violence.
  There is another number I want to conclude with--100.
  We are 100 Senators. We have the honor and the privilege of being 
here.
  We can do something about those 30,000 deaths a year. No, we are not 
going to cure it all with two measures. It is going to take more time 
than that. But people deserve to be safe at work, safe at school, safe 
at a shopping mall, at a movie theater, at a restaurant, at a health 
care clinic, and, yes, at a nightclub. So it is up to us to act. One 
hundred of us can look at the fact that we lose 300,000 Americans over 
10 years, and we have done nothing since the 1990s. Today we can change 
all that.
  I do thank so very much my colleagues, Senator Feinstein and Senator 
Blumenthal, for their work on this legislation.
  Mr. President, I retain the time for the debate on our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, before I speak, I ask unanimous consent 
that I be permitted to speak for up to 20 minutes, to be followed by 
Senators Nelson and Murphy for 5 minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, would you please tell me when I have 
used 17 minutes, and then I want to reserve 3 minutes for the Senator 
from Pennsylvania to follow me with his 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will do so.


                           Amendment No. 4751

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I wish to address three topics.
  First, I want to express my unwavering support for those who were 
killed and wounded in Orlando and for their families, friends, loved 
ones, and community members.
  This terrorist attack represents a great tragedy and an affront to 
our way of life and very existence as Americans.
  I look forward to doing what I can as chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee to support and give the FBI the tools it needs to investigate 
the circumstances of this attack by a radical Islamic terrorist.
  All Americans have every reason to be upset and even furious over the 
deadliest attack since the awful events of September 11.
  I, too, am angry. I am angry that this individual was interviewed 
twice, yet evaded detection. I am angry that this radical made his 
plans known to others and generally raised suspicions of others, yet 
was still able to carry out his horrific plot.
  And I am upset that the attack in a sense reflects the failure of our 
foreign policy. There are more lone wolf attacks because there are more 
lone wolves.
  I was asked recently: Why does it make any difference whether 
President Obama references ``radical Islamic terrorism'' or not?
  The answer is that growing numbers of jihadists are spewing radical 
Islamic terrorist ideology over the Internet, radicalizing Americans 
into lone wolves.
  President Obama said, after the Orlando attack, that the shooter was 
not involved in a ``larger plot,'' as if that would provide comfort.
  By not calling out that the attack developed from radical Islamic 
terrorism, he failed to recognize the dangerous ideology that derives 
from radical Islam and its deadly influence on individuals who are not 
part of any ``larger plot.''
  Moving on to my second course of business, I am here to talk about 
guns and the Second Amendment.
  Over the course of multiple hours on Wednesday, we heard my 
colleagues across the aisle take all of their anger and focus it on 
firearms--not the war on terror, not radical Islam, not our porous 
borders, but guns.
  Through the hours of finger wagging, many things were stated as the 
gospel truth, and if we are truly to have a discussion regarding guns, 
those misleading or incomplete statements must be corrected.
  We can have a debate on the merits.
  My colleagues across the aisle are entitled to their opinions, but 
they are not entitled to manufacture their own facts.
  From the first moment the minority leader hit the floor on Wednesday, 
we heard erroneous statements on the law on gun purchasing by those who 
would commit terror.
  He cited comments from a jihadist that would-be terrorists can go to 
gun shows and buy fully automatic weapons without a background check.
  Well, they can't.
  Even the Washington Post Fact Checker gave the minority leader two 
pinocchios on this claim.
  No one can buy a fully automatic weapon without a background check.
  The gun used in Orlando was not a fully automatic weapon.
  It was a semi-automatic weapon, where each pull of the trigger makes 
one shot.
  Those guns are used legitimately for recreational purposes by large 
numbers of law-abiding Americans for target practice.
  Surely the minority leader knows the law on this point.
  The fact that a radical Islamic terrorist would lie about the law is 
not a reason that the law needs to be changed.
  The minority leader also invoked what he referred to as the ``terror 
loophole.''
  So did the Senator from Connecticut, whose amendment is before us.
  What is this terror loophole?
  To hear the minority talk about it, it means that terrorists are able 
to lawfully purchase firearms.
  This is nonsense.
  Anyone convicted of terrorism can't legally buy a gun.
  For people we know are going to commit terrorism, I hope that we are 
not only preventing that individual from buying a gun, but we are 
either killing, arresting, or detaining that individual, depending on 
where he or she is found and in what capacity.
  What the other side means when they say terror loophole is someone 
who might be on any number of flawed terrorist watch lists.
  If we actually had a list that contained only actual terrorists, I 
would gladly support an effort to not only prevent them from acquiring 
firearms, but also to detain and bring them to justice as quickly as 
possible.
  What we really have are these flawed watch lists that contain errors 
and are at the same time both under- and over-inclusive.
  Time and again, the other side says they support Second Amendment 
rights.
  Don't believe them.
  The terrorist watch list amendment they now propose achieves the 
remarkable feat of violating two different provisions of the Bill of 
Rights at the same time.
  It violates the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms and it 
violates the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
  The Senator from Connecticut has discussed on the floor that the 
Second Amendment is not absolute.

[[Page S4347]]

  That is a truism. No one says it is absolute.
  The question for the other side is: What rights do they think the 
Second Amendment protects?
  Secretary Clinton has refused to say that she believes that the 
Second Amendment protects a fundamental individual right.
  If it doesn't, then what individual rights of gun ownership does it 
protect?
  And the terrorist watch list amendment also doesn't treat the Second 
Amendment as protecting a fundamental individual right to own any guns.
  The amendment violates the Second Amendment because a fundamental 
constitutional right cannot be infringed without due process of law.
  The executive branch compiles a secret no-fly list without notice to 
the individual, any opportunity to be heard, or any judicial finding 
that there is probable cause to believe that the individual should be 
on the list.
  As a result, the list fails to include some who should be on it, and 
it includes people who shouldn't.
  We know that our former colleague, Senator Kennedy, was on the list.
  This Senator helped a former high-ranking army officer be removed 
from the list.
  The statement that the other side made that there is no due process 
problem because all these individuals are dangerous is false for many 
reasons, including that there is no proof that they are all actually 
dangerous.
  Depriving people of constitutional rights based on an inaccurate list 
and no process at all prior to that denial of rights violates due 
process.
  One list is compiled for purposes of allowing flight, which, unlike 
gun ownership, is not a constitutional right.
  It was never designed for any other purpose.
  To apply it to gun purchases is, in the words of an Obama 
administration official, ``apples and oranges.''
  But the amendment treats apples as oranges.
  The other side just doesn't care that the Feinstein amendment is 
unconstitutional.
  We know that because experts have made this indisputable point for 6 
months since the amendment was first proposed.
  But when the amendment is offered again, the same flaws appear.
  Like the Bourbon kings, the sponsors have learned nothing and 
forgotten nothing.
  To be sure, the Bush administration proposed a similar wrong-headed 
idea.
  But that was before the Supreme Court recognized that the Second 
Amendment protects an individual right to gun ownership.
  And Congress did not pass that proposal.
  It is important to note that some of the most prominent voices 
against the terrorist watch list amendment are people who support gun 
control.
  For instance, in an editorial featuring a photo of Senators Feinstein 
and Murphy, the Los Angeles Times asked and answered the question this 
way: ``Should people on the no-fly list be able to buy guns? Yes.''
  The editorial pointed out correctly that people on the various no-fly 
list and terrorist watch lists are not convicted of any crime.
  We don't know that a person is actually dangerous because he or she 
is on the list.
  The vast majority of the people on the list are foreigners who are 
already prohibited from buying guns.
  And the Los Angeles Times accurately stated that, since the Second 
Amendment is a fundamental right, the ``reasonable suspicion'' standard 
in the Feinstein Amendment is too weak a standard for a government 
agency to abridge that right without judicial supervision.
  And it also faulted the amendment for only allowing a challenge to a 
gun sale after it was denied, with no judicial involvement prior to 
that point.
  The editorial also noted that the San Bernardino shootings would not 
have been stopped had an amendment prohibiting people on the terrorist 
watch list from buying guns been in place.
  And I will add neither would the killings in Orlando, since this 
person was not on the list at the time of the gun purchase.
  Claims made to the contrary on the floor are without merit.
  My amendment, which I will discuss in a little while, and the Cornyn 
amendment, would have given law enforcement notice that this individual 
sought to purchase a gun, for them to take appropriate action.
  The Los Angeles Times was not the only major newspaper that 
editorialized against the Feinstein amendment--so did the largest 
newspaper in my state of Iowa, the Des Moines Register, for many of the 
same reasons.
  I know that the minority leader pays close attention to the 
Register's editorials.
  But if he blew up their editorial against the Feinstein amendment on 
a chart behind him on the Senate floor, as he has with various other of 
their editorials, I must have missed it.
  Just this past week, the New York Times ran an opinion piece by Adam 
Winkler, another Californian, and a law professor at UCLA.
  Professor Winkler noted that the National Rifle Association has 
raised objections to the Feinstein amendment, in particular, that the 
Attorney General has too much leeway under that amendment in placing 
people on the list based only on suspicion.
  And they object as well to the bill's flawed process of denying the 
sale based solely on the Justice Department's say so, and allowing a 
prospective purchaser to sue the Department in court, but only after 
their right is denied.
  But unlike many other gun control supporters, Professor Winkler 
wrote, ``We should take the N.R.A's criticisms seriously.
  ``Due process of law is a vital constitutional principle and 
Americans have a right to own firearms for self-protection.''
  Professor Winkler also wrote, ``If the attorney general believes a 
suspected terrorist should be added to the list, she should have to go 
to court first and offer up evidence.
  ``Only after concluding that the attorney general has probable cause 
should the court approve the denial of the suspect's right to own a 
gun.''
  This proposal's violation of the Second Amendment is demonstrated by 
considering whether the other side would condition the exercise of any 
other constitutional right in the same way.
  Lone wolves are susceptible to radical Islamist terrorist propaganda 
on the internet.
  But the sponsors of that amendment would never propose curtailing a 
person's First Amendment right to search the internet because the 
Attorney General suspected they might be a terrorist.
  What if inclusion on one of these lists deprived an individual of 
their right to worship at a church, mosque, or temple?
  Or their ability to qualify for public assistance, the ability to 
obtain an abortion, or their right to vote?
  It is not credible to believe that the Senators who support the 
amendment from the Senator from California would be so passionate about 
stripping these other rights and benefits based upon inclusion on a 
flawed list.
  Let's talk straight.
  Taking away a fundamental constitutional right based on a flawed list 
and the Attorney General's suspicion can't be called closing a 
terrorist loophole.
  I am not sure how you tell constituents that you believe that the 
Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms 
if you vote for that amendment.
  The terrorist watch list amendment is not only unconstitutional, but 
is based on faulty premises.
  Its supporters would have the public believe that a person on that 
list can go buy a gun without anyone stopping them. This is simply not 
true.
  At a Judiciary Committee hearing last December, FBI Director James 
Comey stated that currently the FBI is notified when an individual in 
the terrorist database attempts to buy a firearm.
  More to the point, Mr. Comey stated there are ``a variety of things 
that we do when we are notified that someone on our known or suspected 
terrorist database is attempting to buy a firearm.
  ``The FBI is alerted when that is triggered, and then we do an 
investigation to understand are there disqualifiers that we are aware 
of that could stop the transaction. And if the transaction goes 
through, the agents who are assigned to that case, to that subject, are 
alerted so they can investigate.''

[[Page S4348]]

  So let's be clear, the FBI is notified when someone in the database 
attempts to purchase a firearm, and then they investigate the 
individual.
  All of the rhetoric you heard about the FBI not knowing about a 
particular purchase is not true; they are notified.
  The reason they were not notified in Orlando is because the terrorist 
had been removed from the watch list.
  There have been so many poorly reasoned arguments and misstatements 
of law and fact on the Senate floor that cry out for a response.
  One thing this attack should show is the need for increased ability 
of our intelligence agencies to identify and monitor individuals who 
are either tied to radical Islamic terrorism or are potential lone 
wolves.
  Recently, a Senator spoke of his unwillingness to give the FBI 
additional surveillance tools in the form of national security letters 
for fear that the FBI might use that power as it had unfairly 
investigated the likes of Martin Luther King, Jr.
  This same Member came to the floor Wednesday, demanding we used a 
flawed list to deny Second Amendment rights without due process.
  I don't see how it is possible to simultaneously deny the FBI the 
tools its needs to fight terrorism, but favor depriving the civil 
liberties of lawful gun owners based upon a flawed list that could be 
subject to the same overreach.
  The Senator from Connecticut has offered an amendment requiring 
universal background checks.
  Such an amendment would not reduce crime, according to the Deputy 
Director of the Obama administration's National Institute of Justice.
  He wrote that the problems of criminal obtaining guns through straw 
purchases and theft, the main ways they do get them, ``would likely 
become larger if background checks at gun shows and private sellers 
were addressed.''
  And the amendment of the Senator from Connecticut would eliminate 
private sales.
  Talk about unintended consequences.
  In the same memo, the Deputy Director concluded concerning universal 
background checks that their ``[e]ffectiveness depends on . . . 
requiring gun registration.''
  Criminals already don't comply with background checks.
  When ``universal'' checks are circumvented, we will be back here 
debating gun registration.
  We should not do anything that will further the cause of gun 
registration.
  In addition, the Senator from Connecticut and others invoke the so-
called ``gun show loop hole.''
  That is the leading basis offered for his amendment.
  Anyone watching the floor Wednesday and today would be left with the 
impression that people who buy a firearm at a gun show aren't subject 
to a background check.
  In fact, all gun show purchases made from commercial gun dealers 
require a background check.
  These commercial gun dealers, or Federal firearms licensees as the 
law refers to them, typically make up the majority of the gun vendors 
at gun shows.
  So let's be clear: If someone goes to a gun show and purchases a 
firearm from a commercial gun dealer, they are subject to a background 
check, period.
  So, then, who are these people who aren't subject to a background 
check?
  If you are an individual and you want to sell your gun to another 
individual, you may do so, assuming you don't know or have reasonable 
cause to believe that such person is prohibited from owning a gun.
  The government does not dictate where this sale takes place.
  You can sell your hunting rifle to your neighbor's daughter, and you 
can make that sale in your home, driveway, or a parking lot.
  You can also make this sale to another individual at a gun show.
  This is what is referred to as a peer-to-peer transaction: Two adults 
engaged in a personal transaction.
  Just as there is no background check required in your driveway, there 
generally is no background check required when that private, peer-to-
peer sale happens to occur at a gun show.
  This is not a loophole in the pejorative sense of the word; this is 
an American lawfully selling their property to another without Federal 
Government involvement.
  In this same vein, to hear my colleagues discuss it, you would assume 
that these gun shows were lawless free-for-alls for felons and 
terrorists to obtain their newest illegal weapon.
  In fact, local, State, and Federal law enforcement are often present 
at gun shows, both in uniform and covertly in plain clothes.
  They monitor and intervene in suspected unlawful firearms sales, such 
as straw purchasing, attempted purchases by prohibited individuals, and 
the attempted sale of illegal firearms.
  As the Washington Times reported late last year, law enforcement 
arrests at gun shows hit new highs last year.
  I recently attended a gun show in Iowa, and there was a robust law 
enforcement presence.
  But we have heard that communities that would otherwise be violence-
free due to their strict gun control laws are dangerous because of 
people who buy guns at gun shows in other States and bring them to 
those otherwise safe cities, causing large numbers of homicides.
  This claim has no basis in reality.
  Federal law enforcement is present at gun shows.
  They monitor vehicles with out-of-state license plates.
  They stop cars from such shows that head to cross State lines.
  Their important efforts to enforce the law and to protect us all 
should be praised and recognized, not minimized or omitted.
  In fact, enforcement of any kind has yet to be a topic in this 
debate.
  The push is for new gun control measures without any appreciation for 
what can be done to address the problem of violence with the laws 
already on the books.
  President Obama has stated unequivocally that firearms enforcement 
has been a priority for his administration.
  This simply is not true.
  The Obama administration chose to focus its criminal justice 
resources elsewhere.
  Federal firearms prosecutions are down at least 25 percent under this 
President.
  In addition, he suspended successful programs specifically designed 
to thwart firearms offenses.
  Unfortunately, as has so often been the case with the Obama 
administration, the rhetoric just does not match the action.
  As I have repeatedly called for, we need greater enforcement of the 
existing law, which simply has not happened under this administration.
  In fact, in a remarkably senseless move, the Obama Administration 
eliminated an earlier restriction on the ability of foreign citizens to 
purchase guns unless they had lived in a particular State for 90 days.
  Remember that when considering that asylees or refugees or visitors 
who have not been screened before entering this country under the visa 
waiver program can legally buy a gun.
  Last week, the Senator from Connecticut contended that there is less 
gun crime and fewer homicides in States that have passed strict gun 
control laws, like his State.
  Perhaps gun crime has declined there.
  But homicide rates are higher in Connecticut than in many States that 
provide greater protection of gun rights, such as my State of Iowa.
  And leaving aside the question of causation versus correlation, all 
one has to do is look at Maryland to refute the claim that imposing 
tougher gun control reduces crime.
  Maryland, under its prior Governor, imposed some of the toughest 
regulations on purchasing guns.
  What has happened?
  Murders in Maryland, and particularly in Baltimore, have increased 
dramatically.
  Murder is increasing right here in Washington, DC, despite very 
stringent gun control laws.
  The other side wants it both ways, heads-I-win, tails-you-lose.
  Where crime falls and State laws are stringent, they say the State 
laws work, regardless of laws anywhere else.
  Where crime rises in States with gun control, they argue it is 
because other States have lenient laws.
  You can't apply a situational analysis to the effectiveness of State 
gun laws.

[[Page S4349]]

  The Washington Post recently reported a study that found no 
correlation at all, much less causation, between homicides and State 
gun laws.
  And that same newspaper's ``Fact Checker'' gave my colleague's claim 
three pinocchios.
  Similarly, we hear that if we only reenacted the assault weapons ban, 
we could stop mass shootings.
  This is an argument not for a policy that has never been tried, but a 
policy that has been tried and failed.
  Nonetheless, for some inexplicable reason, we continue to hear calls 
for an assault weapons ban.
  Columbine occurred when the assault weapons ban was in effect.
  Murder rates continued to fall after the assault weapons ban expired.
  And even Justice Department-funded research found the effects of the 
ban on crime to be none to minimal.
  But even when gun control fails, the calls to enact more never stop.
  Additional gun control, as William F. Buckley, Jr., stated in a 
different context, was once ``a fixed rational conviction, then blind 
faith, and now . . . rank superstition.''
  Once again, the Washington Post fact-checked the Democrats' erroneous 
claim and gave it three pinocchios.
  The Senator from Connecticut has also statements made about online 
purchases of guns, as if a would-be terrorist could order one from 
Amazon and it would show up at their door without a background check.
  That is not the law, either.
  Guns can be ordered online.
  But anyone who orders a gun from out of State or from a licensed 
dealer online is not allowed to actually take possession of a gun 
without undergoing a background check.
  In-state private sales are not subject to that requirement, but that 
is true of all in-state private sales whether or not advertised on the 
Internet.
  The Senator from Connecticut's amendment would create a new Federal 
felony for not reporting a lost or stolen gun to local police and to 
the U.S. Attorney General.
  This new crime would apply only to lawful gun owners and not to 
criminals.
  The amendment provides, ``It shall be unlawful for any person who 
lawfully possesses or owns a firearm . . .'' to fail to report the 
theft or loss.
  There is no requirement that a person who unlawfully owns a gun 
report its threat or loss.
  This provision poses a major threat to freedom--because in America, 
we prohibit criminal actions.
  Although that limits freedom, it does so much less than a law that 
criminalizes inaction.
  It is very rare to criminalize inaction.
  Only a few classes of people have an obligation to act, like police 
officers and doctors.
  But for ordinary citizens, this is rare.
  One very limited exception is to file a tax return, and it took a 
constitutional amendment to give the government the power to mandate 
that.
  We should not impose a prison sentence of up to 5 years on a law-
abiding person who fails to act.
  I have been calling the Second Amendment a fundamental right.
  What does this mean to you and me as Americans?
  It means that the right to bear arms falls into the same category as 
our other most closely held individual rights: the right to free 
speech, the right to freedom of religion, and the right to due process 
under the law.
  It should be emphasized that the Second Amendment right to bear arms 
is an individual, fundamental constitutional right.
  Let me remind my minority colleagues of this as they are ready to run 
roughshod over the Bill of Rights.
  Finally, I now want to talk about my amendment, which will be offered 
as a side-by-side with the Murphy amendment.
  The Protecting Communities and Preserving the Second Amendment Act of 
2016 has five key components that are designed to fix our current 
background check system, among other things.
  First, as we all know from our own life experience, a database is 
only as good as the data it contains, with accuracy and completeness 
being paramount.
  Our National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, is 
the background check database for firearms purchases.
  This database needs improvement.
  In that vein, my amendment requires that agencies containing relevant 
records make their submission to NICS a priority and provides specific 
guidance that federal courts are to upload their records to NICS 
forthwith. Yes, we currently have a database that contains inconclusive 
Federal court records; there is simply no excuse for this.
  In addition, this amendment incentivizes States to submit relevant 
mental health records to NICS.
  And my amendment has real teeth, authorizing $125 million for 
operating and improving the NICS system.
  Next, my amendment modernizes the prohibition on those with certain 
mental illness or involuntary commitments from acquiring or possessing 
firearms.
  We not only update the definitions, but provide critical due process 
protections for individuals like veterans and others prior to an 
adjudication of mental incompetence.
  Contrary to what some have said, my amendment does not permit someone 
who has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution to legally 
purchase a gun simply by virtue of their release.
  A second, additional requirement must be satisfied as well.
  Either a court or similar body must make an adjudication, or an 
appropriate official of the institution must find, that the individual 
poses no danger to himself, herself, or others. Mere release from the 
institution, for instance because of a need to find space for another 
individual, will not allow the person to be able to buy a gun under the 
plain terms of my amendment.
  Third, my amendment contains multiple provisions that requires 
agencies to report to Congress on NICS records submissions, firearms 
prosecutions, declinations, and convictions, as well as Federal 
ammunition purchasing.
  There is also a requirement that any Department of Justice component 
that wishes to use the potentially dangerous tactic of ``gun walking'' 
obtain direct approval from the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney 
General, or the Assistant Attorney General for the criminal division 
and include an operational plan with built in safeguards to prevent 
firearms from being transferred to a third party as occurred in the 
fatally flawed ``Fast and Furious'' investigation.
  Finally, my amendment includes a provision that would alert the 
authorities if a firearms or explosives transfer request involves a 
person who is, or within the previous 5 years was, investigated as a 
known or suspected terrorist.
  This notification provision would ensure that law enforcement is 
alerted when all those who are, or were within the last 5 years, 
suspected of terrorism, seek to obtain a firearm or explosive.
  This provision ensures protection of Americans' fundamental Second 
Amendment rights, but also alerts key law enforcement officials to the 
possibility of a terrorist plot.
  The other sides says that no progress is being made on gun crimes.
  But my amendment would improve the situation, even for people who 
would favor going further.
  We can make important improvements, such as through my amendment.
  Senators who are unwilling to support important progress are putting 
a higher premium on politics.
  The Second Amendment right to bear arms is a fundamental right, and 
any legislative action must start and finish with recognition of this 
fact.
  Mr. President, I yield my time to the Senator from Pennsylvania, 
regardless of how much time it is.
  Mr. TOOMEY. I thank the Senator from Iowa for yielding to me.
  Mr. President, what I really wish to do is express my deep 
frustration that we are here with what is about to happen on the Senate 
floor because we are talking past each other. We have a system, a 
series of votes, all designed to fail. We are going to accomplish 
nothing. That is what we are making sure of tonight.
  It doesn't have to be this way. That is what is so maddening about 
this. I will briefly give you one aspect of this. The background check 
legislation we are going to vote on is the version that

[[Page S4350]]

goes further than the bipartisan compromise that Senator Manchin and I 
worked out a couple of years ago. What are the chances that is going to 
pass? I would say pretty close to zero. We know that. If we are going 
to have a vote on background checks, it ought to be the only bill that 
I am aware of in recent time that has had bipartisan support. It may 
not pass, I understand that, but at least it would have a chance. We 
are not even going to have that vote.
  Let's talk about the other big, controversial issue that we are going 
to vote on--we already know the outcome of this vote--and that is about 
terrorists and whether terrorists can buy guns and what do we do about 
this.
  Let me start with what ought to be a pretty simple goal that we ought 
to be able to agree on. No. 1, terrorists shouldn't be able to buy guns 
legally. That shouldn't be terribly controversial, but it also 
shouldn't be controversial that if an innocent American is denied his 
or her right to buy a gun because they are alleged to be a terrorist, 
they ought to have an opportunity to clear their name. Guess what. 
Governments make mistakes. The Federal Government makes mistakes all 
the time. The mere fact that they have a list almost guarantees that 
somebody is wrongly on that list.
  That is not a reason to do nothing, but it is a reason that you have 
to have a meaningful process whereby people could challenge their 
status on the list.
  I think the bills we are going to vote on tonight have serious flaws.
  First, the Feinstein amendment. There is no due process at all, 
nothing to speak of. Think about the way this is designed--the way this 
bill is designed. By the way, we have already had this vote, and it 
failed overwhelmingly.
  Under the Feinstein approach, the Attorney General can put anyone he 
or she wants on the list. There is no judicial review; there is no kind 
of review. She can create the criteria, she creates her list, and now 
all of a sudden anyone on that list is denied the opportunity to buy a 
gun.
  Proponents will argue that there is an opportunity for the gun buyer. 
The problem is that person has to go to court. The burden is on the 
buyer to prove his innocence, and he doesn't even get to see the 
evidence. How can you possibly prove the evidence against you is flawed 
if you are not allowed to see the evidence? Clearly, that is not a 
serious attempt to give someone who is wrongfully placed on the list 
the chance to clear his name.
  The Cornyn approach. The Cornyn approach is better than what we have 
now because it creates a new tool. It provides a new tool that the AG 
does not have--the Attorney General doesn't have--and that is a 3-day 
period during which the Attorney General would have an opportunity to 
make and win a case. I think that is a difficult thing for an Attorney 
General to do, and I have suggested this legislation is flawed because 
of that. It is better than what we have now, but it is probably not 
enough in many circumstances--which is why we shouldn't just be talking 
past each other and revoting on things we know are going to fail.
  I have legislation, and Senator Collins is working on legislation. 
What we both have tried to do with different mechanisms is to make sure 
that a terrorist cannot buy a gun legally but also to make sure that 
the people on the list are put there properly and, if there is a 
mistake, a law-abiding American citizen has a reasonable opportunity to 
litigate that to get his or her name off the list.
  In my approach, the Attorney General can come up with a list, but it 
has to be vetted by a court. If someone is not on the list, there is an 
emergency mechanism available to the Attorney General that would block 
the sale--it would block the sale if the Attorney General said so--and 
then provide a reasonable and manageable amount of time during which 
this could be litigated.
  In other words, if the buyer says ``Wait a minute; I am not the John 
Smith you think I am, and I shouldn't be denied my Second Amendment 
right,'' under my approach--and I believe under Senator Collins' 
approach--that innocent American would have a chance to have his or her 
day in court, which is denied under the Feinstein approach.
  The bottom line is we know the Feinstein bill is going to fail. We 
know the Cornyn bill is going to fail. They are both going to fail 
tonight. There is nobody who disputes that.
  Why aren't we working on something that could actually get done, 
something that would actually stop terrorists from being able to 
legally buy guns and at the same time give a law-abiding American the 
opportunity to clear his name if he is wrongfully put on the list?
  That is what we ought to be doing. I am not saying I have the only 
way to get this accomplished. I think Senator Collins' legislation is 
going to be unveiled soon. I know she has been working on this very 
constructively with a group of folks. But one or the other of these 
approaches--either the Collins approach or mine--needs to get a vote in 
this body because it is the only kind of approach that really is a 
serious way to balance these two important priorities and has a chance 
to earn bipartisan support.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.


                           Amendment No. 4720

  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, yes, this Senator is from Florida. This 
Senator is from Orlando.
  This is an AR-15. It is the civilian semi-automatic version of the 
military version M-16. This is what the killer used in Orlando a week 
ago. It is the same .223 caliber. It is collapsible stock. It is the 
SIG SAUER MCX. Do we think that a person who is on the no-fly list 
ought to be able to buy one of these lethal killing machines?
  I have been a hunter all my life. I grew up on a ranch. I own numbers 
of guns, but my guns are for hunting. These guns are for killing, and 
that is exactly what that weapon did to 49 people just a little over a 
week ago.
  If we have a list, and it is approximately 1,000 American citizens or 
American people who are here legally, both--not Americans--that 
category is called American persons. There are roughly a thousand on 
the no-fly list. If they cannot get on a plane to fly, should they be 
able to go out and buy one of these?
  There are another 1,700 folks that are on a selectee list, and those 
are the ones for which there is close to credible evidence that they 
are a terrorist--1,700. There is close to credible evidence that they 
are a terrorist, and do we want them to go and buy this kind of a 
weapon?
  Then there is another category, and that is those on what we call the 
terrorist watch list. In this country that is about 5,000 people--
American persons--for which there is declaratory evidence that they are 
a terrorist. Do we want them to be able to purchase these weapons?
  The Feinstein bill--that group of 5,000; that is it in America, there 
are 5,000. There are many more who are internationals, but there are 
5,000 American persons on that list. I don't think we want them to be 
able to buy this gun. Even if that had been the law, it would not have 
caught Mateen. Thus, Senator Feinstein included the bill that I had 
filed which would catch Mateen because it says if you have been on the 
terrorist watch list--as he was back in 2013 and 2014, and they didn't 
have any prosecutable evidence, so they closed that case--when you 
purchase a gun, the FBI would be notified so that the FBI could make an 
up-to-date decision that they want to go back and interview that 
person.
  If they had seen Omar Mateen purchasing these, knowing that he had 
been on their watch list, they would have gone and talked to him. That 
is what is in front of us. It seems to me it is common sense. We hear 
words out here: Oh, this is the NRA locking down its votes, putting the 
fear of God in our Republican friends and colleagues about the next 
Republican primary they are going to be in.
  I am so proud of the Senator from Connecticut and what he did for 15 
hours to bring this thing to a head.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Florida has 
expired.
  Mr. NELSON. Thank you for listening to my plea.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.

[[Page S4351]]

  



                           Amendment No. 4750

  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.
  I thank all the staff and, again, all colleagues--40 of them--for 
joining us on the floor on Wednesday night into the early hours.
  Let's be clear about what happened. Let's be clear about the fact 
that this body was going to ignore what happened last weekend in 
Orlando--the largest mass shooting in the history of this country. We 
were going to pretend that it didn't happen. If not for the actions of 
Senator Booker, Senator Blumenthal, 30-some odd others, and me, we 
would be moving on to business that had nothing to do with keeping this 
Nation safer.
  I don't know how these votes are going to turn out tonight. I know 
people are skeptical, but we are at least going to get to see where 
people stand on some pretty simple concepts--the concept that if you 
are suspected of terrorism, you should not be able to walk out of a gun 
store in this country with a dangerous assault weapon.
  A new poll today tells us that 87 percent of Americans support that. 
Guess what. A greater percentage of Republicans than Democrats support 
that. Do you know why that number is so high? Because this country is 
under attack. This country is under attack, and the new weapon of 
choice of terrorists is not a plane or an explosive device, it is an 
assault weapon.

  After September 11, we made a decision. We made a decision to stop 
terrorists from getting onto planes because they were using them to 
kill Americans. Well, today terrorist recruiters are specifically 
instructing would-be terrorists to go into gun shops and to gun shows 
and walk out with assault weapons that, as we saw last weekend, can 
kill 50 people in an instant. So why wouldn't we apply the same careful 
protection and make sure people who are suspected of terrorism can't 
get on a plane and also can't get an assault weapon? Second, why don't 
we make sure that protection exists whether they are walking into a gun 
store or a gun show?
  That same poll that came out today suggested that an even greater 
percentage of Americans--90 percent--support expanding background 
checks so that you have to prove that you are not a criminal, that you 
are not a potential terrorist before you buy a weapon.
  These two measures are not controversial anywhere else in the 
American public except for here. And the amendments offered by Senator 
Grassley and Senator Cornyn aren't even half measures. Senator 
Grassley's amendment would take people off the background check list, 
would allow people who were leaving a psychiatric institution to buy a 
weapon the next day. Senator Cornyn's bill would force the Department 
of Justice to go to court to stop a suspected terrorist from getting a 
weapon. They are just shields. They are just shields for Members who 
don't want to stand up and do the right thing.
  The reason I came to the floor on Wednesday and didn't leave for 15 
hours is that I know at a deep personal level what Orlando is going 
through. I don't know what the families are going through. That is 
something which is unique to losing a loved one. But I know what that 
community is going through. And I believe that for all of the scarring 
psychological harm that comes from losing a loved one or a neighbor, 
more harm is piled on when you find out the people you elected to run 
your country just don't care. It hurts something awful when you lose 
someone, but it gets worse when your leaders are silent--are totally 
silent--in the face of your personal horror.
  Long after all of the moms and dads had left the firehouse in Sandy 
Hook after learning their boys and girls were lying dead on the floor 
of that school, there was one father who was left and who wouldn't 
leave--who couldn't leave. His name was Neil Heslin. He came to this 
Congress to tell us his story, and as we head into this vote, I will 
leave you with his words. In speaking about his son Jesse--he was a 
divorced dad with one son, his best friend. His best friend, his son, 
was dead. He said:

       Before he died, Jesse and I used to talk about maybe coming 
     to Washington someday. He wanted to go up to the Washington 
     Monument. When we talked about it last year, Jesse asked if 
     we could come and meet the President . . . because Jesse 
     believed in you. He learned about you in school and he 
     believed in you. I want to believe in you, too. I know you 
     can't give me Jesse back. Believe me, if I thought you could, 
     I'd be asking for that. But I want to believe that you will 
     think about what I told you here today. I want to believe 
     that you will think about it and you'll do something about 
     it, whatever you can do, to make sure no other father has to 
     see what I've seen.

  My friends, we need to have an answer for Neil and the 80 other 
fathers every single day who join the ranks of those who know his pain. 
I urge the adoption of the Murphy and the Feinstein amendments.
  I yield back.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The 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, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Senate amendment 
     No. 4751 to the instructions of the motion to commit H.R. 
     2578, an act making appropriations for the Departments of 
     Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related Agencies for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and for other 
     purposes.
         Mitch McConnell, Roger F. Wicker, Thad Cochran, Tom 
           Cotton, Thom Tillis, John Boozman, Richard C. Shelby, 
           John Hoeven, Pat Roberts, Joni Ernst, Mike Rounds, John 
           Cornyn, John Barrasso, Deb Fischer, Johnny Isakson, 
           David Vitter, James M. Inhofe.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on 
amendment No. 4751, offered by the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. 
McConnell, for the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, to the instructions 
of the motion to commit H.R. 2578, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 53, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 103 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Lankford
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--47

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 53, the nays are 
47.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the votes 
following the first vote in this series be 10 minutes in length.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The 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, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the McConnell 
     motion to commit H.R. 2578 to the Judiciary Committee with 
     instructions (Murphy amendment No. 4750).
         Harry Reid, Jeff Merkley, Jeanne Shaheen, Kirsten E. 
           Gillibrand, Amy Klobuchar, Claire McCaskill, Debbie 
           Stabenow, Charles E. Schumer, Sherrod

[[Page S4352]]

           Brown, Mark R. Warner, Richard Blumenthal, Tom Udall, 
           Tammy Baldwin, Jack Reed, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Angus 
           King, Jr., Brian E. Schatz.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. 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 commit H.R. 2578 to the Committee on the Judiciary with 
instructions to report back forthwith with amendment No. 4750, offered 
by the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell, for the Senator from 
Connecticut, Mr. Murphy, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 44, nays 56, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 104 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--56

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). On this vote, the yeas are 44, 
the nays are 56.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The senior 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, do hereby move to bring 
to a close debate on Senate amendment No. 4749 to amendment No. 4720 to 
Calendar No. 120, H.R. 2578, an act making appropriations for the 
Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related Agencies for 
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and for other purposes.
         Mitch McConnell, Tom Cotton, Thom Tillis, John Boozman, 
           Richard C. Shelby, John Hoeven, Pat Roberts, James M. 
           Inhofe, David Vitter, Joni Ernst, Mike Rounds, John 
           Cornyn, John Barrasso, Deb Fischer, Cory Gardner, 
           Shelley Moore Capito, Johnny Isakson.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on 
amendment No. 4749, offered by the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. 
McConnell, for the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn, to amendment No. 
4720 to amendment No. 4685 to H.R. 2578, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 53, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 105 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--47

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Flake
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas 53, the nays are 47.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.


                             Cloture Motion

  Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending 
cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The senior 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, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Feinstein 
     amendment No. 4720 to Shelby amendment No. 4685 to H.R. 2578.
         Harry Reid, Jeff Merkley, Jeanne Shaheen, Kirsten E. 
           Gillibrand, Amy Klobuchar, Claire McCaskill, Debbie 
           Stabenow, Charles E. Schumer, Sherrod Brown, Mark R. 
           Warner, Richard Blumenthal, Tom Udall, Tammy Baldwin, 
           Jack Reed, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Angus King, Jr., Brian 
           E. Schatz.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on 
amendment No. 4720, offered by the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. 
McConnell, for the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, to 
amendment No. 4685 to H.R. 2578, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 47, nays 53, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 106 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--53

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Lankford
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 47, the nays are 
53.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.


                Motion to Commit With Amendment No. 4750

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to table the motion to commit 
with instructions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  Mr. DURBIN. 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. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Utah (Mr. Lee).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Carper) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?

[[Page S4353]]

  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 42, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 107 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kirk
     Lankford
     Manchin
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--42

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Casey
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Carper
     Lee
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                           Amendment No. 4720

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment No. 4720.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The motion was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 4787 to Amendment No. 4685

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4787.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky, [Mr. McConnell], for Mr. McCain, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4787 to amendment No. 4685.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To amend section 2709 of title 18, United States Code, to 
 clarify that the Government may obtain a specified set of electronic 
  communication transactional records under that section, and to make 
  permanent the authority for individual terrorists to be treated as 
 agents of foreign powers under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
                              Act of 1978)

       At the appropriate place , insert the following:
       Sec. ___.  Section 2709 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking subsection (b) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(b) Required Certification.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Director of the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation, or his or her designee in a position not lower 
     than Deputy Assistant Director at Bureau headquarters or a 
     Special Agent in Charge in a Bureau field office designated 
     by the Director, may, using a term that specifically 
     identifies a person, entity, telephone number, or account as 
     the basis for a request, request information and records 
     described in paragraph (2) of a person or entity, but not the 
     contents of an electronic communication, if the Director (or 
     his or her designee) certifies in writing to the wire or 
     electronic communication service provider to which the 
     request is made that the information and records sought are 
     relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against 
     international terrorism or clandestine intelligence 
     activities, provided that such an investigation of a United 
     States person is not conducted solely on the basis of 
     activities protected by the first amendment to the 
     Constitution of the United States.
       ``(2) Obtainable types of information and records.--The 
     information and records described in this paragraph are the 
     following:
       ``(A) Name, physical address, e-mail address, telephone 
     number, instrument number, and other similar account 
     identifying information.
       ``(B) Account number, login history, length of service 
     (including start date), types of service, and means and 
     sources of payment for service (including any card or bank 
     account information).
       ``(C) Local and long distance toll billing records.
       ``(D) Internet Protocol (commonly known as `IP') address or 
     other network address, including any temporarily assigned IP 
     or network address, communication addressing, routing, or 
     transmission information, including any network address 
     translation information (but excluding cell tower 
     information), and session times and durations for an 
     electronic communication.''.
       Sec. ___.  Section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and 
     Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (50 U.S.C. 1801 note) is 
     amended by striking subsection (b).


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk for 
the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The senior 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, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Senate amendment 
     No. 4787 to amendment No. 4685 to Calendar No. 120, H.R. 
     2578, an act making appropriations for the Departments of 
     Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related Agencies for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and for other 
     purposes.
         Mitch McConnell, Chuck Grassley, Orrin G. Hatch, John 
           Thune, Thad Cochran, Marco Rubio, Tom Cotton, Richard 
           Burr, Pat Roberts, Thom Tillis, Mike Rounds, John 
           Cornyn, John Barrasso, Deb Fischer, Cory Gardner, 
           Shelley Moore Capito, Johnny Isakson.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the 
mandatory quorum call.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to recommit the bill to the 
Appropriations Committee for a period of 14 days.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] moves to recommit 
     H.R. 2578 to the Appropriations Committee for a period of 14 
     days.

                          ____________________