Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHUMER. First, I thank my colleague from Florida for that amazing presentation. I thank my colleagues from Connecticut and New Jersey for the amazing job they have done in making sure they do everything they can, using the procedures of this body, to see that we get votes on this important legislation. I also thank my friend from Connecticut, who has held the floor for some time today--both Senators from Connecticut, who have done an amazing job. And I know we will all be looking forward to hearing from our friend from West Virginia for his words. I thank all of the Senators on the floor because this is so important.

The Senator from Connecticut said it has been nearly 4 years since Sandy Hook and this body has done nothing. He is right. This body is shameful. This body is shameful in its obeisance to the hard right of the gun lobby in not even doing the most reasonable things that almost all Americans support, that don't affect the rights of legitimate gun owners, and that would simply make our country safer.

I say to the Senator from Connecticut, we are in a new world. We are in a world where lone wolves can get a hold of guns and do huge damage, as we saw and as our friend from Florida eloquently talked about in his own State. We have to change and adapt to that world. Maybe in the old days people would say: Well, terrorism is not going to happen here. It has. It has, and we need to make sure we do everything we can to prevent terrorists from getting guns.

My colleagues have talked about two pieces of legislation; No. 1, making sure that if someone is a person the authorities suspect might commit terrorism and may be planning a terrorist attack and they also know that a gun which that person purchased can be used in that attack, they would stop them from getting a gun, and, No. 2, legislation on universal background checks because we need both.

My question to my colleague is along these lines. If we closed the terror loophole, we still could have a terrorist go to a gun show or go online and buy a gun. If we just deal with making sure there are universal background checks, we haven't prevented terrorists from getting guns at a gun show, online, or at a gun shop, as we saw.

As the author of the Brady law, there was no online then, so we didn't ban online purchases. The NRA, to get the vote--it only passed by one vote on the House floor--said let gun shows get in. In those days, gun shows were what they used to be, not a massive place where people go buy guns but people who needed to sell the one gun they had. What has evolved is that the people who want to get around the law use gun shows methodically and regularly to avoid the background check. I would simply ask my colleague this. Isn't it true that these two pieces of legislation go hand in hand? Isn't it true that if we did one-- either one but not the other--that terrorists or suspected terrorists could still get their hands on guns? And isn't it true that both pieces of legislation have the overwhelming support of a huge number of Americans?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHUMER. I have one other question, if I might, Mr. President, for the Senator from Connecticut, and then we want to hear what the Senator from West Virginia has to say. He has been a courageous leader on this issue.

There is some talk on both sides of a compromise. I know I have talked with the Senator from Connecticut and all of my colleagues here, that on our side of the aisle we are willing to compromise. It doesn't have to be one way to do it, but I would just ask the Senator: Isn't it true that we don't want to compromise so we can say we did something and not really close both of these loopholes?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHUMER. That the compromise that is built around what the Senator from Texas has proposed--which says that you have to go to court to prove that the person might be a terrorist, and after 3 days they can get a gun, and that no court proceeding would take that long-- would be a meaningless compromise, a pyrrhic victory, and something the vast majority of us on this side of the aisle would not accept?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my colleague and agree with him completely and look forward to the questions from the Senator from West Virginia.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, will my colleague from Connecticut yield for a question?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I just came from the Sandy Hook Promise Dinner, a dinner put together by the parents in his State. These are family members who have lost loved ones in that horrible tragedy of Sandy Hook. They were so inspired by the actions of their two Senators, who are also chairs of this organization, the Senator from New Jersey, and so many others who have taken to the floor tonight. When I mentioned what was going on here, they rose up in a standing ovation. They inspire us, and I know they have inspired our good friends from Connecticut. They are amazing people.

When something like this happens and a loved one is taken from you, as so many loved ones were lost in Orlando--as the good Senator from Wisconsin so eloquently documented earlier this evening--the natural inclination is to curse the darkness, to ask ``why me,'' to be angry, to turn inward and say: I don't want to live life anymore. For those who can light candles to try and prevent this from happening to others even though their losses will never, never, never be extinguished--the holes in their hearts will never been gone--is an amazing thing.

Before I ask my question, I wanted to convey to my good friend how his activities and the activities of his colleague from Connecticut and the Senator from New Jersey and so many others here today have inspired this group just as they have inspired us. I think the Senator is correct. If we can have a virtuous cycle of being inspired by others and then trying, through our small efforts, to inspire others, we will win this fight. I have every confidence that we will.

Dr. King said: The arc of history is long, but it bends in the direction of justice. That is something that we are all mindful of. It will bend in the direction of justice, and my colleague from Connecticut has helped to bend it a little bit more, and for that, we are so, so, so thankful.

I wish to ask my colleague a question about what we have heard from some on the other side, which is about the Second Amendment and the kind of proposals that we have seen by the Senator from Texas and the Senator from Pennsylvania, as they seek a compromise and talk about the Second Amendment. To them, it almost seems that the Second Amendment is absolute.

I, for one, believe in the Second Amendment. I believed there was a right to bear arms even before the Heller decision. I believe that it is not fair to read the other amendments of the Constitution in such an expansive way and then say that the Second Amendment means just militia. Some of my colleagues on this side of the aisle will agree, and some will disagree.

The question to my colleague is very simple. Even if he has a strong belief in the Second Amendment, no amendment is absolute. The First Amendment is so dear to us, but you can't falsely scream ``fire'' in a crowded theater. That is a limitation on our First Amendment rights. We have laws against child pornography, as we should, and that is a limitation on our First Amendment rights. We have libel laws. If you say something that is false that hurts or damages someone, you can be sued. That is a limitation on First Amendment rights.

Isn't it true that just as we have limitations on First Amendment rights, there are reasonable limits on Second Amendment rights? It would seem to me that one of the most logical limitations is to say that someone who is totally dangerous or might be totally dangerous and can wreak the kind of tragedy that we saw in Orlando, Newtown, Aurora, and in other places across the country, such as San Bernardino, should not have an absolute right to a firearm. Another point here--before I get to my question--is that I find it ironic that so many of my colleagues who are so meticulous on the Second Amendment in terms of civil liberties and due process don't really seem to care about it on all the other amendments. That is the sort of inverse. We don't hear rousing speeches from some of the Senators who have gotten up in the past few days to say something like: Let's make sure we don't make a single mistake when it comes to the criminal justice system. We have a number of Senators from New Jersey and Illinois here tonight who have worked hard on criminal justice relief, but we don't hear from the other side about the need for making sure due process is followed when it comes to the criminal, except for the Second Amendment.

Let's try to be consistent here. Let's believe in all the amendments, but let's realize that every amendment has a limitation. That a balancing test has always been the watch word of the Supreme Court from the founding of the Republic.

I ask my colleague to explore this contradiction about the idea from some that the Second Amendment alone is the only one that should be absolute. Would my colleague talk a little about that? We have talked about this together in the past. Would my colleague talk about the need for reasonable limitations on every amendment, including the Second Amendment, as we are attempting to do here with two pieces of legislation we seek a vote on--a simple vote?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source