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

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the past few days, we have been contemplating the horrific shooting in Orlando and asking ourselves how this could happen and, of course, grieving and praying and thinking about the people who lost their lives and their families and those who were injured.

As the Presiding Officer knows, yesterday we had the opportunity to get briefed by the FBI Director and the Secretary of Homeland Security. What we learned is that there is still a lot left to learn and that the investigation is ongoing. But clearly this was not a random act of violence. This is not about somebody going to purchase a gun at a store and then going out and deciding indiscriminately to kill the first person they meet, but then again, neither was the shooting in San Bernardino a random act of violence or the attempted shooting in Garland, TX, which was thwarted by a security guard. These were calculated acts of terror and a reminder--a reminder of the threats to our homeland from ISIS, not just in the Middle East but right here at home by people who have never traveled to the Middle East but who communicate through social media and online and become radicalized by this ideology of hate, one that results in terrible tragedies such as the one we saw in Orlando.

Sadly, our friends on the other side of the aisle have seen this as an opportunity to make this a political debate about gun control, and they simply are refusing to acknowledge the threat we face from radical Islam. Rather than trying to solve the problem, they are trying to drive a wedge between the American people and come up with something that basically does nothing.

I think one thing that makes people crazy about Washington, DC, is when people stand up and claim to understand the problem and yet offer solutions that don't solve the problem but, rather, fit some sort of talking points or ideological agenda. It is clear that what we heard yesterday from our friends across the aisle has nothing to do with defeating ISIS or the threat of international terrorism or the radicalization of Americans in their homes.

So today I am filing an amendment that I believe will offer a solution. I believe that if it had been enacted beforehand, it may have provided the law enforcement agencies, such as the FBI, the tools they need in order to identify somebody like the Orlando shooter beforehand and to take them off the streets. This amendment is called the SHIELD Act. It would not only stop terrorists from getting guns, but it would take them off the streets, and it would do so in a way that is consistent with our Constitution.

I want to make this clear so there is no doubt at all. Every single Senator wants to deny terrorists access to the guns they use to harm innocent civilians. But there is a right way to do things and a wrong way.

My friends on the other side of the aisle have put forward a measure that was voted on last December, sponsored by Mrs. Feinstein, the Senator from California. The bottom line is that proposal doesn't protect our constitutional rights, and it doesn't go far enough to make our country safer. Under Senator Feinstein's proposal, after being denied a gun for being on some classified list created by the government--lists that are often riddled with errors and include law- abiding citizens--the individual can go home, search the Internet for how to build a homemade bomb or go to the hardware store to buy everything they need to carry out some other sort of terrorist attack, and they are free to walk the streets and to plot that attack.

As I mentioned, my legislation actually does what we need to do to give law enforcement, first, the notice that this individual is trying to buy a weapon but then an opportunity to take them off the streets and deny them access to a firearm. Their legislation does nothing to protect the due process rights of American citizens under the Bill of Rights and under our Constitution.

Many of us remember that a few years ago, the late Teddy Kennedy cited his own frustration with showing up on a list that was created by the government in secret, only to find out that he, a United States Senator, was on a no-fly list. Back in 2004, he was put on the list and he was denied an airplane ticket. If Teddy Kennedy from the Kennedy family--one of the most powerful political families in America in our whole history--was denied an opportunity to get on an airplane because he was erroneously put on a no-fly list, you can imagine the problems the rest of us would have.

Senator Kennedy said at the time:

Now, if they had that kind of difficulty for a member of Congress . . . how in the world are average Americans who are going to get caught up in this kind of thing, how are they going to be able to get treated fairly and not have their rights abused?

That is a pretty good question. It highlights my greater point that we have to be very careful. We need a robust response to protect American citizens but one that doesn't infringe on constitutional rights.

If Senator Kennedy was placed on a watch list and had trouble getting his name removed, do we have any confidence that average Americans like the rest of us will not have their constitutional rights stripped, with no legal process to remedy it?

In the United States of America, where I was born and grew up, we simply cannot deny somebody a constitutional right without due process of law and making the government come forward and presenting evidence to a judge so that a determination can be made not by the government but by an impartial third party.

The proposal I am filing today will help fight terrorism at home and ensure that due process is protected. It is called the SHIELD Act. It would create a process for our law enforcement officials to actually investigate and look at the evidence. But it wouldn't just stop terrorists from buying guns; it would go further--certainly further than the Democrats' amendment--by helping law enforcement take them off the streets. Under my proposal, if someone who is known or suspected of being a terrorist tries to buy a gun, they will be blocked from doing so while the authorities carry out an investigation, followed by an expedited hearing where a judge can block the sale permanently if adequate evidence is produced. And importantly, if the judge determines there is probable cause to block the sale, they can do more than just block the sale; they can take the terrorist into custody. If we believe someone is dangerous enough to not be able to buy a gun, shouldn't we do our best to take them off the streets so they don't pose a danger to our communities?

We also learned from Director Comey yesterday that there are additional tools the FBI does not currently have that we ought to make sure it has, things to make sure that they can use, for example, national security letters to collect not only financial information in counterterrorism cases, which they currently can, but also to make sure that Internet providers can provide IP addresses and email addresses-- not content. Not the content. That would require a court order and a showing of probable cause. But the fact is, if we are going to have the FBI and our law enforcement officials connect the dots, we are going to have to make sure they have the tools to collect the dots. That is what we need to be focusing on, not pursuing some opportunistic political agenda that will not solve any problems at all.

I believe my amendment could have had an impact on the Orlando shooting because, as we all have learned, while the shooter in Orlando was not on a watch list at the time he bought the weapons he used in the shooting, he had been on a watch list and he had been investigated by the FBI. Unfortunately, they didn't come up with sufficient evidence with which to detain him at the time.

Under my amendment, when somebody who was previously under investigation for suspicion of terrorism within the last 5 years--like the Orlando attacker--goes to buy the gun, the FBI and the State and local law enforcement authorities will be immediately notified, and they can then escalate their investigation. They can go to a judge and say: Judge, we need a wiretap so we can listen to--based on a showing of probable cause under the Fourth Amendment--we can listen to the conversations to see if they are calling people and engaging in another plot with coconspirators.

In this way, I believe the SHIELD Act could have prevented the tragedy that occurred over the weekend in Orlando because this shooter was on a watch list within the previous 5 years, and if the FBI had been notified, which they would have been if he were on a watch list, then they could have escalated the investigation further and perhaps have discovered enough evidence to take him off the streets.

This is a similar proposal to the one I offered back in December that garnered bipartisan support and received more votes than my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. As a matter of fact, we had 55 votes with a bipartisan majority on my amendment last December. This new amendment is a small tweak in modification, but it is a straightforward plan that reflects input from all sides, and it will stop terrorists from buying guns and will provide a means to get them off the streets but doing so in a way that ensures American citizens' constitutional rights will be respected.

I think this just makes sense. I think it is pretty reasonable, and it is a good starting point if we are trying to address the real threat of Islamic extremism rearing its ugly head here at home, but as I mentioned, we must do more than equip our law enforcement officials with the tools they need in order to collect evidence and hopefully prevent these attacks from occurring in the future.

So going forward, I hope we will come up with an agreement that any response to domestic terrorism must include providing the FBI and other law enforcement the resources and authorities to track down terrorists and take them off the streets. Fort Hood Tragedy

Mr. President, 2 weeks ago, about a dozen soldiers were in an Army tactical vehicle in Fort Hood, TX, as part of a larger training exercise when they were swept off the road. Nine of them lost their lives by drowning. This was in the aftermath of heavy rain and flooding throughout Texas, and their vehicle overturned as they tried to cross a flooded creek.

As I said, out of the 12 people swept out of the tactical vehicle, 9 of them drowned, but thankfully 3 survived. The nine who died came from all over America--California, New York, New Jersey, Florida, Indiana, and Texas. They were also at various stages of their honorable careers of serving our country and the U.S. Army.

Today, at the Spirit of Fort Hood Chapel, the Fort Hood community is gathering to remember each of them, their families, to offer prayers for their friends and family left behind, and to consider how we can honor their legacy going forward.

I, of course, send my prayers and deepest condolences to those who have lost loved ones. I can't imagine their pain, but I share in their grief. Fort Hood is a resilient place. Over the years, it has experienced a number of tragedies, including the shooting by MAJ Nidal Husan, just to name another one. They have experienced tragedy before, and I hate that they have to do so again, but I know, without a doubt, that the community there that is nicknamed ``the great place'' is strong, and I hope and pray the service today is a time of hopeful remembrance for those who committed their lives to protect and defend our freedoms.

I thank them for their service, and I stand ready to support the Fort Hood community in any way I can while they continue to grieve the loss of these nine heroes.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source