Joseph Woodrow Hatchett United States Courthouse and Federal Building--

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, let me begin by saying that I am proudly pro-Second Amendment. I believe in the God-given right for law- abiding Americans to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment has given millions of Americans the right to defend their spouses, their families, their children, and their homes.

But if you consider yourself a supporter of the Second Amendment, you absolutely want to do something about Uvalde, to do something about the murders related to domestic violence, to do something about straw purchases, and to do something about teen suicide by gun. You cannot be pro-Second Amendment unless you care deeply about these issues.

That is why we have targeted legislation, the Safer Communities Act, that addresses the specific problems that have led to mass shootings. We do it by restricting the access of someone who should not have a weapon, by providing additional mental health resources, and by hardening schools. This legislation accomplishes these goals without infringing upon a law-abiding citizen's Second Amendment right.

Let me repeat that because there has been confusion in speeches from this floor. There has been the internet exploding. There are rumors afloat that somehow this infringes upon a law-abiding citizen's right to keep and bear arms. That is absolutely false, and if anyone says so, they are misleading the American people. This doesn't do any of that.

What this legislation says is that unless you are adjudicated--now, ``adjudicated'' is a $5 word that means you go before a judge, and the judge looks at the evidence. Under this bill, if a State puts this into law, then they have got to follow due process, which says that the person who may lose his Second Amendment right has the right to an attorney, a higher standard for the evidence that must be presented, and that the person has his day in court.

This was the gold standard that the National Rifle Association always advocated for, as if we were going to take Second Amendment rights from someone who should not have them, and this bill has that gold standard.

I had a couple of townhalls just to find out what folks back in Louisiana were thinking about as to all of this. Frankly, they are talking about inflation and the price at the pump as much as they are talking about this, but I got a message: They think that we can protect Second Amendment rights and do something about a tragedy such as Uvalde. Let me give you some of the comments because it shows you the confusion and it shows you the concerns and it shows you where the American people are.

Chris asked if, when he dies, he can pass his gun to his child if his child is law-abiding.

Absolutely. That is preserved. We don't touch that, and, by golly, Chris should be able to do so.

We were asked by Tyler if this raises the age of the ability to purchase a weapon from 18 to 21.

It does not. It doesn't touch that--although, apparently, Tyler had been told that that was the case.

I was asked by R.J. about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.

I said: Man, we have got something in there, R.J., that actually addresses that.

I heard from two people who said we should forbid the purchase of so- called assault weapons. Then I heard from one guy who said: Man, I live in a tough section of town, and if somebody invades my house, I don't want it to be a fair fight.

So I have heard all sides of these arguments as to what, but the message I got was that we can address--we can protect--Second Amendment rights but still do something about Uvalde.

Now, it is not just Uvalde. There are other types of gun violence in our society. This bill addresses at least four. There is the domestic violence. There is the suicide by the child. There is the gangster buying a gun and shooting people up. Then there is the rampage shooting. Let's talk about each of those.

When it comes to the domestic violence--when a guy beats up his girlfriend and he comes back with a weapon and shoots her a month later--that happens too much. I have talked to my police chief, Murphy Paul, in Baton Rouge, and he tells me that domestic violence and domestic murder spiked under the pandemic. This bill does something about it.

I asked people who oppose this bill: What about domestic violence, man? What about that woman who is threatened? Shouldn't we do something for her safety?

This bill does something for her safety and, quite likely, for her children's safety, and it quite likely prevents a suicide by the troubled man who goes there in the first place.

Let's talk about crime, gangsters, straw purchases.

A boyfriend has got a felony and can't buy a weapon. So the girlfriend buys one and slips it to him. It is against the law now, but it happens all the time.

R.J., if you are watching on C-SPAN, man, I am channeling you.

We took the provision R.J. said we should do, and we increased the penalties for that person who buys a weapon merely to pass it to another. They will, hopefully, throw her in prison for as much as 10 years if she contributes to a murder by buying a gun for someone who goes out and commits that murder.

We talk about rampage shootings. Do you know what is much more common? It is the teenager shooting himself. We stop that. Oh, they can still steal a weapon if they want to, but there is $12 billion in some form or another for mental health services. We do our best to reach that child.

By the way, the rampage shooting is the worst. Then comes suicide. Then comes the addiction. I am a doctor. I have seen this stuff. After the addiction, it just becomes the person who is emotionally troubled.

We are putting in mental health services that can address it all with money for a 9-8-8 line so that if somebody is just like, ``Oh, my gosh, I am desperate,'' they have somebody to call.

Personally, I would like to have an app. I would like to have an ``I am a troubled teenager'' app, and ``I need somebody to talk to.'' They are doing this in Utah, and they tell me that the investment has been tremendous. I think they told me they prevent a suicide a week. That is off the top of my head. Call it a suicide every 2 weeks. That is a powerful intervention. This bill has that capability.

Lastly, there is the information regarding the rampage shooting-- Uvalde.

Somebody told me: You know, I searched on the internet, and I didn't see that this guy was troubled.

That is precisely the point. This man is troubled, but he is less than 18. Those records are sealed. You can't get to them. So, even though every indication was that this young, troubled man would have had a reason not to be able to purchase a weapon, it is sealed. When he turns 18, he is a clean guy, and he goes out and buys two assault weapons and starts planning his assault.

If you are pro-Second Amendment, by golly, you want to stop that. What this bill does is it allows the court to look into that and say: ``Oh, he is clean; that is OK,'' or ``No, he is troubled, and we need a little extra time to look at this.''

By the way, that is a provision that has been distorted and twisted to imply that law-abiding 18-to-21-year-olds would not be able to purchase a weapon. If you are law-abiding, you can still purchase that weapon if you are 18, but if not or if there is another indication, then the background check has a chance to look at it. If you are pro- Second Amendment, by golly--I will say it one more time--you should applaud that provision.

Now, let's do a couple of other things.

Do you know that, right now, a Mexican cartel can smuggle weapons to Mexico to shoot people up? We make that illegal. You would think it already would be, but it is not. How can somebody be against that, criminalizing cartels for smuggling weapons to Mexico? But, somehow, we are infringing upon the Second Amendment rights of cartels. My gosh, I wish we would do worse to them.

We increase penalties for illegal gun traffickers and criminal-to- criminal gun transfers. We are doing something about criminals, but-- have I said it yet?--we preserve the Second Amendment rights for the law-abiding.

Now, I am a gastroenterologist. So I don't know anything about due process except as a term, but in speaking to John Cornyn, who has done a fantastic job, and the other attorneys, I have learned a little bit about due process.

By the way, whenever somebody calls me up and they say they have heard something on the internet, I say: Why don't you read the bill? It is 80 pages. Read the bill. On page 33, you are going to read about due process.

It says that any State red flag law--and we don't encourage those red flag laws, but if the State decides to do one and they want Federal dollars, they now have got to obey these rules. The rules say that it must include, at a minimum, due process rights that prevent any violation or infringement of the Constitution of the United States.

If you are pro-Second Amendment, you should like that. A State can actually have a red flag law right now and not have that in there, but under this bill, by golly, they had better. How can anyone object to that?

The bill also ensures that no State can sidestep due process. It strengthens the citizen's right to due process. It increases the evidentiary bar. It can't be hearsay. It can't be a social worker: Oh, I am a little nervous. It has to be before a judge, and it has to have evidence, and the person losing their right or may be losing their right has to have the ability to have an attorney with them.

Now, no offense to my people on the other side of the aisle, but if a liberal State puts forth a law that has poor due process, they won't get Federal dollars. That should be something we are proud of.

My State doesn't have a red flag law. This bill does not require, mandate, or incentivize that Louisiana develop a red flag law. But, you know, my State does get money for drug courts, for enforcing restraint orders so the fellow who is not supposed to go near his wife because they are afraid he will beat her up again--the police have more resources in order to prevent that. Who can be against that? That is in this bill.

By the way, our legislation also hardens schools. There is money for the STOP School Violence school safety program, including school resource officers and school hardening. There is additional funding for mental health resources, drug and violence prevention, mentoring, crisis intervention, high-quality training for school personnel on suicide prevention, and human trafficking. How can someone be against that? This is a solution.

By the way, we have a serious problem in mental health. In my career, I have been privileged to work with Senator Murphy and others on solutions for mental health. There are increased dollars for Medicaid, including telehealth services for schools that might be in a rural area otherwise without a mental professional around. It expands mental health services under Medicaid, school-based mental health services-- all expanded. It reauthorizes the Pediatric Mental Health Care Access Program. It gives pediatric providers extra training in mental health. I could go on.

Now, there is still a lot of misinformation out there, but I would say, if you don't know what is in the bill, it is online. Pick it up, and read it. But if you are pro-Second Amendment, you should be for this bill.

We can protect Second Amendment rights. We can make an impact on teen suicide, upon domestic abuse, upon straw purchases landing guns in the hands of criminals, and upon rampage shootings, and we could do that while protecting the Second Amendment. That is what I am hearing from the American people. That is what this bill does.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source