John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, it is hard for me to say no to Senator Carper because he is such a nice guy and so reasonable, but this isn't a time to be making speeches; it is a time to object or not. So if he has a concluding remark----

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would say to my friend from Arizona, before lunch we had a vote on a very important amendment the Senator sponsored, along with the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, that received a majority vote of the Senate but not enough to get us to the 60-vote threshold. I know the majority leader has put in a motion to reconsider, which will allow him to bring that up because of some absenteeism. I want to ask my friend, during the time the shooter in Orlando was under surveillance by the FBI and was actually put on a watch list, the authority they had to gather information about him and particularly his computer usage by issuing a subpoena to the Internet service provider in order to identify IP addresses and perhaps email addresses, not content--they were denied the opportunity to get that kind of information. Does the Senator have any idea whether perhaps the FBI might have been tipped to the fact that this shooter--let's say he was accessing YouTube videos of Anwar al-Awlaki like Nidal Hasan in Fort Hood was before he committed his terrorist attack there, or let's say one of the email addresses they were able to collect was one of a known terrorist or somebody the FBI suspected was complicit in terrorism, obviously, under the Senator's amendment, in order to get the content of that, the FBI would have to go to the FISA Court and establish probable cause. Does the Senator have an opinion whether that kind of information, to which the FBI was blinded by the lapse in this authority--whether that would be helpful information in identifying potential threats like we saw in Orlando?

Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Senator. I would merely add, this is not a partisan issue. As the Presiding Officer and as the Senator from Arizona knows, the Intelligence Committee has voted in a bipartisan way, with only one Senator dissenting in the Intelligence reauthorization bill, to reinstate this very authority the amendment of the Senator from Arizona pertained to. I believe, of all the votes we have had this week, the vote on Senator McCain's amendment was the one with the greatest potential to stop future terrorist attacks like we saw in Orlando--because we all know the shooter in Orlando was under two separate FBI investigations and he was put on a watch list. With so much discussion about watch lists, he was no longer on a watch list so the FBI was not notified when he went in and purchased the two firearms he used in this attack. We also know he was a licensed security guard, and he actually had a license to own firearms. This is a complicated and complex and confusing picture we have all been presented, and we are all trying to figure out what is the solution or what could we do to help reduce the possibility that something like this might happen in the future? I can guarantee one thing. It is not to limit the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. That is not going to stop future terrorist attacks. If we fail to give law enforcement and counterterrorism authorities the means by which to identify these self-radicalized terrorists before they kill--if we don't do that, then shame on us. This is not partisan, as I said, because a bipartisan majority--with one dissenting vote--on the Intelligence Committee voted for this provision, but we need to get serious about this. I know, because of some absenteeism today-- necessary, I am sure--we didn't have every Senator here present and voting. I hope in the interim, from the time of that failed cloture vote on the McCain-Burr amendment until the time we vote on this again when the majority leader moves to reconsider, we can have some serious discussions and serious efforts at trying to make our country safer and protecting innocent Americans from terrorist attacks on our own soil. If we deny the FBI Director the No. 1 legislative priority of the agency, as he has told us time and time again--most recently in the SCIF, in the secure facility. Obviously, that part is not classified, but he said this is a very important tool. If we are going to ask the FBI and our counterterrorism authorities to connect the dots, well, they can't connect the dots unless they can collect the dots. Again, this is with proper and appropriate regard, under the Fourth Amendment, for American citizens when it comes to searches of their property or seizures. Under the Fourth Amendment, we know there has to be established probable cause that a crime has been committed, established before an impartial judge. We are not talking about the content. We are saying, if there are enough dots to connect together to raise a reasonable suspicion on the part of our counterterrorism authorities, they ought to then have the opportunity to go to a judge and get the content of that communication under appropriate constitutional Fourth Amendment procedures. If they don't even have access to the basic information, then they can't connect the dots because they can't collect them. So of all the votes we have had this week, I believe the vote on the McCain-Burr amendment was the most important because I think it was the one most likely to produce additional tools that our counterterrorism authorities could use in an investigation to identify self-radicalized terrorists in the United States before they strike. It is too late after they strike, when we are all asking the question: What can we possibly do in order to prevent something like this from happening again? We now know what we can do. It may not be a panacea, but it is making sure our law enforcement authorities, such as the FBI, have the tools they need in order to conduct these investigations, again to collect the dots so they can connect those dots. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo).

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, would the Senator from Arizona yield for a question?

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today I would like to pay tribute to a great American public servant and Texan, Ms. Dora Margaret Samudio. Ms. Samudio is retiring after 50 years of dedicated Federal service. Dora was born on October 1, 1945. After she graduated from Sam Houston High School in 1963, Dora began her distinguished Federal career with the Texas State Department of Public Welfare. Shortly thereafter, she became a clerk typist at the U.S. Army Medical Field Service School in Fort Sam Houston, TX. In September 1969, in the midst of the Vietnam war, Dora left her native Texas to pursue a career in Washington, DC. For the next year, she worked for the U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command in the Surgeon General's office until she moved to the War Plans Division at the Pentagon in 1970. At the Pentagon, Dora served as a stenographer with the Deputy Chief of Staff for Military Operations. She then transferred to the litigation division, where she worked for the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General. Dora was responsible for gathering Army witnesses from all over the world to testify in Federal court and kept records of collateral Army aircraft accidents in Vietnam. In 1972, she began working for the U.S. Army Court of Military Review in Falls Church, VA. Dora briefly left Federal service to work at Williams, Connall & Califano in Washington, DC, and at Robinson, Robinson & Cole in Hartford, CT. In the grand tradition of transplant Texans, Dora returned to the Lone Star State in 1978, where she has spent the remainder of her Federal service. In San Antonio, Dora worked at the U.S. Attorney's office until 1980, when she began working for the Honorable William S. Sessions, who was Chief Judge of the Western District of Texas. Dora served a vital role in his office until he was appointed as Director of the FBI in 1987. She then served as a secretary to an attorney and three Customs agents with the Narcotic and Dangerous Drug Section of the Department of Justice, DOJ, Criminal Division. In July 1988, Ms. Samudio began her nearly 30 years of work as a judicial assistant to the Honorable John W. Primomo, U.S. magistrate judge. Judge Primomo holds Dora with highest regards and had the following to say about her: I have known Dora for more than 30 years since she was the Judicial Assistant for Chief Judge William S. Sessions of the Western District of Texas. After his appointment as Director of the F.B.I. and my appointment as United States Magistrate Judge in 1988, it was my fortune that Dora applied to be my judicial assistant. I was surprised that she would be willing to `humble' herself to work for a magistrate judge after serving the chief judge of the district. She is exceptional in all respects. I have always told Dora she is overqualified to be my judicial assistant, yet she has stayed. She is totally dedicated and extremely loyal. We have shared many of our personal ups and downs over the years. A part of me will be missing when Dora retires at the end of the month. It has been a privilege and an honor to work with her for the past 28 years. Throughout her career, she has served with integrity and character. Her legacy will continue to benefit those who know her, and I join with her family, friends, and coworkers in telling that her experience and dedication will be missed. I offer my thanks and appreciation to Dora Samudio for 50 years of steadfast service to our Nation and send my best wishes for the years ahead.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would say to our friend from New Jersey that it is the plan, publicly announced by the majority leader, to bring this legislation that was passed by the House to the floor of the Senate next week. Obviously, we are working on the CJS appropriations bill, and our deliberation on that has been delayed by a number of the other amendments and other matters that have been voted on this week. But it has always been the intention of the majority leader to allow Senators to offer amendments, unlike, frankly, when Democrats controlled this Chamber. But I do think it is going to require some cooperation and maybe even some consent agreements to agree to amendments that can be resolved in time to meet the July 1 deadline. To me, one of the best arguments in favor of this legislation is that we want to avoid a taxpayer bailout. We want to avoid a taxpayer bailout. This legislation from the House does that. I understand the Senator may have some objections to it and some better ideas in his mind, but we are going to have that opportunity next week. If we want to see what the effect of leftwing fiscal policy is, what we see is the bankruptcy occurring in Puerto Rico now. I think they need to try something else, some fiscal responsibility and restraint. Frankly, I worry for the rest of the country that if we don't do something to get our own fiscal house in order here in the United States Senate, the rest of the country is going to find itself in dire straits at some point in the not too distant future. So I would say that we are going to have a chance to have that debate and those votes next week. This is not the time to do it because we have other important work that is pending before the Senate. Nor are the rest of us 99 Senators going to agree to a unanimous consent request to legislation we haven't even read or had time to consider. So under those circumstances, I would be compelled to object.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, tomorrow we will have a chance to begin to talk about the real cause of what happened that horrible night in Orlando at the Pulse nightclub--that is a homegrown terrorist attack inspired by the poisonous ideology of ISIS, the Islamic State. We will have a chance to revisit the total lack of any coherent plan coming out of the White House to deal with the threat of the Islamic State over in the Middle East and the consequences of failing to deal with that here at home. The poisonous fruit of that failure and previous ones is already self-evident: the massacre of American soldiers at Fort Hood, TX, in 2009 that took the lives of 13 people and an unborn child; a deadly attack on 2 military facilities in Chattanooga, TN, in 2015 that took the lives of 5 U.S. servicemembers; an attempted attack in Garland, TX, about a year ago that--but for a vigilant police officer was thwarted-- could have been disastrous; and then, of course, the shooting in San Bernardino where 14 people were killed. Add to that poisonous fruit of the failure to have a coherent policy to deal with the Islamic State and its poison, the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, where 3 persons were killed and many more wounded--not by a gun but by pressure cooker bombs made by the terrorists. Most recently, the worst terrorist attack in our country since 9/11 was in Orlando, where a jihadist pledged his allegiance to ISIS and then viciously gunned down 49 people in that Orlando nightclub. It is telling that the Attorney General sought to withhold from the American people the 911 calls of the Orlando shooter to excise out--to rewrite history--and to diminish the terrorist influences that motivated him in the first place. It is further evidence that the Obama administration fails to see what is plainly right in front of its face when it comes to the threat, and it continues to refuse to deal with it in a way that would crush ISIS and discourage people from becoming radicalized because they feel like ISIS is winning. If ISIS were crushed and destroyed, which should be our goal, I don't believe we would have radicalized Americans here pledging allegiance to the leader of a crushed or destroyed Islamic State. So jihadi terrorism on American soil is not just some one-off, freak occurrence. It is now an undeniable pattern. How many ISIS-inspired attacks do we need in this country before we start talking about and taking the threat seriously and begin targeting the evil ideology ISIS is selling? Typically, in an investigation, law enforcement has to work hours on end to answer the question of who did it. But that is not the case with these examples of Islamic extremism. We know who the enemy is. But the Obama administration has failed to call it for what it is, and the President has failed to offer any strategy to root out and exterminate it. Promises to ``defeat and degrade'' appear just about as hollow as the President's threat of retaliatory action if redlines were crossed with the use of chemical weapons in Syria. When that happened, there were no consequences. So the result is that ISIS isn't contained, and it is surely not retreating. Don't take my word for it. The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency just last week suggested that ISIS would continue to ``intensify its global terror campaign.'' They are not giving up, and they are not going away. They are doubling down. Like the terrorist in Orlando, ISIS is actively using every tool at its disposal to recruit, train, and radicalize individuals here in America and in other parts of the world. This terrorist army figured out a long time ago that it could accomplish its objectives of inflicting death and destruction on innocent Americans without even having to send its operatives from the Middle East into the United States. All it had to do was to export, not its soldiers, but its ideology and poisonous ideas to the United States via the Internet with the propaganda that it uses to, again, poison susceptible minds, those who are sympathetic to the cause and willing to swear allegiance to it and carry out the horrific acts like we saw in Orlando. Over the weekend, the House Homeland Security Committee chairman noted that ISIS and its supporters are posting an estimated 200,000 tweets a day--200,000 separate messages a day on Twitter. How long will it take before the administration recognizes that this propaganda poses a growing national security problem? Once they acknowledge it, how much longer will it take them before they do something about it? In fact, we heard from FBI Director Comey that there are open investigations on individuals suspected of being radicalized in all 50 States. I don't see the administration doing anything at all to effectively counter this terrorist propaganda popping up all over the Internet, turning some susceptible Americans into cold-blooded jihadist killers. We can fight back by equipping our law enforcement personnel with the tools they need to keep us safe. The fact is, you can't connect the dots unless you can collect the dots, and that means robust intelligence consistent with our Constitution, including the Fourth Amendment. Too often law enforcement officials have to operate with one hand over their eye or one hand behind their back, however you want to characterize it, because they can't access key information in a timely manner, and because of that they are not able to discern the pendency of an attack or the motivations of somebody who is planning an attack. If they could collect the information, maybe--just maybe--they could then go to the FISA Court and get a search warrant. Maybe--just maybe-- they could get a wiretap upon the showing of probable cause in court. Those, of course, are consistent with the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the burden should be on law enforcement to produce probable cause evidence in order to justify collection of the content of those communications. We saw the consequences of our flying blind in Garland, TX, just last year. On the morning of the attempted terrorist attack, the two men who came from Phoenix dressed in body armor with semiautomatic weapons sent more than 100 messages overseas to suspected terrorists, and vice versa, but, unfortunately, FBI Director Comey--at least the last time he testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee--said the FBI still doesn't have access to that information because of encryption. This means our law enforcement authorities could be missing critical information that could uncover future terrorist attacks or identify the network of terrorists here so we can stop them before they kill again. The Garland case isn't unique. The FBI is regularly slowed down by outdated policies that make their job of protecting the homeland much more difficult--more difficult than it needs to be. We saw that in San Bernardino too. We have to address this gaping hole in our legal authorities and do all we can to give the FBI and our other law enforcement officials the tools they need, and a good place to start would be tomorrow morning by allowing the FBI to use national security letters to obtain key information about what suspected terrorists are doing on the Internet and whom they are communicating with online in counterterrorism investigations. This is not for content, as the Presiding Officer knows. This is information about Internet and email addresses, much as national security letters are currently authorized to collect telephone numbers and financial information. In fact, the FBI Director said the omission of this authority years ago, he believes, was an oversight, but it now provides a gaping vulnerability and has blinded the FBI to information that could well allow them to have detected the intentions earlier of jihadists like the one in Orlando. I don't know for a fact, but I just wonder if the FBI, back when they were vetting the Orlando shooter on two separate occasions because things he said and did put him on the watch list, if they would have been notified immediately when he purchased his firearms. Well, as we now know, the FBI investigations were inconclusive and he was taken off the watch list. I wonder if the FBI had access to a national security letter that would allow them to gain information about the IP addresses he had been visiting from his Internet service provider, along with email addresses--again, not content because you can't do that without a warrant issued by the FISA Court and a showing of probable cause--and what he might have been viewing, such as YouTube videos of Anwar al- Awlaki, who was responsible for radicalizing MAJ Nidal Hasan at Fort Hood and others, and the information was sufficient enough that the President of the United States authorized the use of a drone in order to kill him on the battlefield so he could not kill other innocent Americans--well, you get my point. We need to make sure the FBI has access to all the information they can legally get their hands on, and a good place to start is voting on the McCain-Burr amendment tomorrow so the FBI can obtain information about what they are doing on the Internet and who they are communicating with, and if it is justified, to be able to then go to court and demonstrate probable cause sufficient to actually then look at content in order to prevent terrorist attacks. I want to be clear about one thing. The FBI already has the power to review financial records like Western Union transfers and the FBI already has the power to review telephone records. They can access telephone numbers, not the content of the conversation, again, unless there is further authority issued by a court of law, but because of an inadvertent omission in the law, the FBI can't readily access the exact kind of information ISIS is using to recruit and radicalize violent extremists lurking in our midst. We have seen how difficult it is to identify these people before they kill. Why in the world wouldn't we want to make sure we provide all the information under our constitutional laws that could be available to law enforcement to identify these people before they kill? I introduced a similar proposal to the McCain-Burr amendment a few weeks ago in the Judiciary Committee that would address this and provide access to this counterterrorism information. I am glad our colleagues, the senior Senators from Arizona and North Carolina, have now offered this amendment to the underlying legislation. As the Presiding Officer knows, this provision, or one very similar to it, was contained in the Intelligence reauthorization bill that had the bipartisan support of everybody on the Intelligence Committee, save one. This is long overdue. It is bipartisan, and I think our failure to act to grant this authority, particularly in the wake of this terrible tragedy in Orlando, would be inexcusable. This is something the FBI Director, appointed by President Obama, has said he needs. He said this is their No. 1 legislative priority. President Obama's administration-- beyond just the FBI Director--supports it. What is stopping us from providing this authority? The truth is, these threats are at our doorstep. ISIS is using every tool it has to spread fear and chaos, and we owe it to those on the frontlines of our counterterrorism efforts to get them what they need in order to more effectively counter these terrorists' efforts. It is our duty to do something about it. Unlike some of the provisions we voted on last night that would do nothing to stop people like the Orlando shooter, this could actually stop them. I am all ears if there are other ideas when it comes to advancing commonsense proposals to fight terrorism at home and make our communities safer, but this is a good place to start. I hope going forward we can do a better job of providing the FBI and law enforcement officials the resources they need to keep us safe. This is within our grasp, and all we need to do is to take advantage of this opportunity and have a strong bipartisan vote to adopt the McCain-Burr amendment tomorrow morning. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

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.

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. 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.

Mr. CORNYN. No objection.

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 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.

Mr. CORNYN. I have no objection to that.

Mr. CORNYN. Right.

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.

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.

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table en bloc.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 462, S. 2348.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendments be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 463, S. 2577.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.