Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HEINRICH. I have several questions I wish to ask Senator Murphy through the Chair today, but I want to start by thanking my friend, Chris Murphy.
I am very proud to call him a colleague. I am proud of seeing him take this stand. I am proud that is forcing us to have this conversation. We all get sent here by our constituents to make tough decisions, to find the truth, and to find a path forward. I am very proud of him for not letting this go quietly with just another moment of silence and no action.
Since Sunday, I think most of us have been walking around feeling literally sick to our stomachs, with a sickness that is not going away.
I know our whole country is just so weary of seeing shooting after shooting and not seeing action and change and something meaningful from all of us.
I was very proud to see my constituents fill Morningside Park in Albuquerque, Pioneer Woman's Park in Las Cruces, the Plaza in Santa Fe, St. Andrew's Episcopal Church in Roswell, and Orchard Park in Farmington--all to remember the victims in Orlando and to say to their families that we are not going to forget them and to say to that entire community that when the LGBT community is attacked, really all of us are attacked.
I came to the floor because I can't believe that we are going to let this happen again and not change something. That goes to what I want to ask the Senator from Connecticut about.
I am here because I know that we can take tangible steps to make our country safer again, steps that are not a burden to gun owners--to gun owners like me. Senator Murphy and I have talked about this at length. We are friends, our families are friends, and our kids are friends.
This is not about creating a burden for law-abiding gun owners, it is not about a threat to the Second Amendment. What has become clear is that there are simply critical junctures where we have to be able to identify those who would do us harm. Whether it is a young person drastically losing their way or a potential terrorist who is intent on doing harm to others, there are times when we have to be able to step in.
It is no secret that I have always believed that law-abiding citizens should be able to own firearms for sport, for self-defense. A lot of New Mexicans do just that and do it with incredible responsibility, but I simply cannot stand by and let this pass with just another moment of silence.
It is personal. As the parent of a 13-year-old, as the parent of a 9- year-old, and watching what happened at Sandy Hook in Senator Murphy's home State--without believing there must be something more that we can do--I find it so frustrating that kids today in elementary school, in middle school, have to do things that we never had to do when we were growing up--practice sheltering in place and what happens in an active shooter situation. Our kids simply shouldn't have to do that. We owe it to the American people to take real action, to reduce the violence in our communities. I truly believe that keeping guns out of the hands of people who are, frankly, legally prohibited from having them is just such common sense.
The fact that we are arguing about this is a little bit unfathomable, but that is all we are talking about with background checks. That is what background checks do. That is what closing the terror gap would do.
I can't tell you how many times I have been through the background check process. Through the Chair, I ask Senator Murphy, if I have to pass a background check to buy a deer rifle, why shouldn't firearms sales made on the Internet or at a gun show require such a simple procedure that makes sure that law-abiding people have access to firearms and makes sure that people who aren't law-abiding, who have been convicted of a felony, who potentially could be on the terrorist watch list do not. We are going to talk a little bit about closing that gap. Shouldn't we make sure that all of our firearms sales cut a clear and decisive line between the law-abiding and those who have lost their rights through the actions they have taken?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HEINRICH. Well, I want to get to a second question, but I want to say that is absolutely accurate. I can tell you I don't think it has ever taken me more than 15 minutes to go through that process.
As a law-abiding gun owner, as somebody who has taught my kids how to be responsible with firearms, I don't want criminals to be in possession of firearms. I don't want someone who has been convicted of domestic violence to be in possession of firearms.
This is about separating the law-abiding from terrorists and criminals. What could be more common sense?
If you look at Federal law, it literally identifies 10 categories of individuals who today are prohibited from shipping or transporting or receiving firearms or even ammunition, because we have made the judgment through our judicial system and through our laws that they present a threat to public safety.
This list includes convicted felons, as it should. It includes fugitives. It includes drug addicts and people who are committed to mental health institutions. It includes undocumented immigrants. It includes anyone who has received a dishonorable discharge from the military, someone who has renounced their U.S. citizenship, or someone with a restraining order for domestic violence or misdemeanor convictions for domestic violence. Finally, it includes anyone who is under a felony indictment.
To me, the second amendment that Senator Murphy was speaking of--the second amendment not to the Constitution but the second amendment to this bill--speaks to whether it shouldn't be true that someone who is suspected of terrorism should not be considered as unfit to own and use a firearm legally as someone who has been dishonorably discharged or has renounced their U.S. citizenship. We are talking about people who have gotten on the no-fly list, for example, for some very real reasons.
Through the Chair, I ask Senator Murphy: If the FBI or intelligence community believes that someone is such an imminent threat that they are so dangerous that we cannot allow them to board a commercial airliner, shouldn't they also be prohibited from buying a gun or shouldn't we at least let the Attorney General flag that sale and do something about it?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HEINRICH. And is it not true, I ask Senator Murphy through the Chair, that there are due process protections in this amendment so that if someone were to find themselves on a list, there is a right to redress so that we ensure not only that terrorists can't simply walk into a gun store or go online and buy firearms but also so that there is due process?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HEINRICH. I was looking at updated data from the Government Accountability Office that sort of leads to my next question, and it shows that known or suspected terrorists pass a background check to purchase a firearm or to purchase explosives 91 percent of the time. The terrorists themselves have actually identified this weakness. They know it exists. I sit on the Intelligence Committee, and we look at what they communicate to each other so that we can learn how to make our country safer.
There was an Al Qaeda video in 2011 that literally instructed potential terrorists to take advantage of our incomplete background check system.
There have been a number of terrorist attacks in recent years where giving the Attorney General the authority to prohibit a suspected terrorist from purchasing a firearm could have at least thrown up meaningful barriers. I think most notable was the horrendous Fort Hood shooting in 2009, where MAJ Nidal Hasan was able to pass a background check and buy a handgun, even though he was under an active FBI investigation for links to terrorism. He went on to shoot and kill 13 people. He wounded 30 others.
So if we are saying that whole categories of other people present such a public safety threat that they shouldn't have access to firearms, I just can't believe we shouldn't at least give the Attorney General the ability to put terrorists on the same do-not-buy list. Why wouldn't we do that, Senator Murphy?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HEINRICH. I have one last question for my colleague from Connecticut, and this one is probably the hardest one. It is simply why? Why is this so hard?
I stand here as a gun owner. I have looked at each of these amendments through the lens of what it means to be a law-abiding gun owner in this country, with both rights and responsibilities. That is why we have hunter safety before we ever go out into the field as a 12- year-old or a 13-year-old.
I just don't see anything in these two amendments that is an unreasonable burden to someone like me. So why is it so hard to even have this conversation on the floor of the Senate? Why is it so hard to get a vote? And more importantly, why is it so hard to change these policies and these laws to try to make our country just a little bit safer?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HEINRICH. I just want to thank Senator Murphy for everything he has done on this issue and for not taking no for an answer.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source