Angus King

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, today I wish to voice my support for the Enewetak Atoll Cleanup Veterans Registry and Study Act of 2016. I am joined by my esteemed colleague from Maine, Susan Collins, in introducing this initiative, which will help to combat a very important issue facing the servicemen and women stationed at the Enewetak Atoll between 1977 and 1980. These veterans assisted in a radiation cleanup mission that may have exposed them to harmful nuclear waste, and may be causing them health problems to this day. Between 1948 and 1958, the United States used the Enewetak Atoll for nuclear bomb testing. In 1977, after a total of 43 nuclear tests, the United States engaged in a 3-year cleanup mission, costing $100 million and requiring a task force of nearly 1,000 servicemembers. However, despite the clearly dangerous nature of handling radioactive material, there is no registry or health study for those who served at Enewetak during that time. This bill would require the Secretary of the VA to establish a registry of veterans who served as part of the cleanup of Enewetak Atoll, and have subsequently experienced health issues that may have resulted from exposure to radiation. In addition, the bill would direct the VA to commission an independent study investigating any linkages between those who were exposed to the radiation and subsequent health problems. It would allow for the gathering of targeted data for a better assessment of exposure, and would help determine whether these veterans should be granted the presumption of service-connection disabilities. Throughout our Nation's history, our veterans have put themselves in harm's way to ensure our freedom time and time again. Their unwavering patriotism and courage demonstrate the fortitude of American character and our Nation's commitment to democracy worldwide. In response, we must do everything we can to follow through on our responsibility to provide for our veterans, and the brave men and women who served at Enewetak Atoll are no exception to this solemn duty. This bill demonstrates our commitment to honoring and respecting our Nation's heroes, past and present, and I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, today I wish to voice my support for the Enewetak Atoll Cleanup Veterans Registry and Study Act of 2016. I am joined by my esteemed colleague from Maine, Susan Collins, in introducing this initiative, which will help to combat a very important issue facing the servicemen and women stationed at the Enewetak Atoll between 1977 and 1980. These veterans assisted in a radiation cleanup mission that may have exposed them to harmful nuclear waste, and may be causing them health problems to this day. Between 1948 and 1958, the United States used the Enewetak Atoll for nuclear bomb testing. In 1977, after a total of 43 nuclear tests, the United States engaged in a 3-year cleanup mission, costing $100 million and requiring a task force of nearly 1,000 servicemembers. However, despite the clearly dangerous nature of handling radioactive material, there is no registry or health study for those who served at Enewetak during that time. This bill would require the Secretary of the VA to establish a registry of veterans who served as part of the cleanup of Enewetak Atoll, and have subsequently experienced health issues that may have resulted from exposure to radiation. In addition, the bill would direct the VA to commission an independent study investigating any linkages between those who were exposed to the radiation and subsequent health problems. It would allow for the gathering of targeted data for a better assessment of exposure, and would help determine whether these veterans should be granted the presumption of service-connection disabilities. Throughout our Nation's history, our veterans have put themselves in harm's way to ensure our freedom time and time again. Their unwavering patriotism and courage demonstrate the fortitude of American character and our Nation's commitment to democracy worldwide. In response, we must do everything we can to follow through on our responsibility to provide for our veterans, and the brave men and women who served at Enewetak Atoll are no exception to this solemn duty. This bill demonstrates our commitment to honoring and respecting our Nation's heroes, past and present, and I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the paper and forest products industry to support their advancement of six sustainability goals. There are about 18,000 hard-working men and women employed by the forest products industry in the State of Maine where we have about 40 wood products and paper manufacturing facilities contributing over $900 million to the economy through jobs and wages and over $4 billion in industry shipments of products, making the forest products industry one of the largest manufacturing sectors in our State. Sustainability is inherent to the pulp, paper, packaging, tissue, and wood products manufacturing industry. These products are made from renewable and recyclable resources, and these companies have a good track record of managing natural resources in order to ensure they can continue making useful products in the future. In 2011, the industry established the Better Practices, Better Planet 2020 initiative pursuing one of the most extensive sets of sustainability goals established for a U.S. manufacturing industry. By 2020, the Better Practices, Better Planets goals aim to exceed 70 percent paper recovery for recycling, improve purchased energy efficiency by at least 10 percent, reduce greenhouse gas emissions from member facilities by at least 15 percent, increase the amount of fiber procured from certified forestlands or through certified fiber sourcing programs in the U.S. from 2005 to 2020 and work to decrease illegal logging, improve worker safety by 25 percent, with a broader vision of zero industry injuries, and reduce water use in member facilities by 12 percent This week the American Forest & Paper Association released their 2016 report on the industry's performance. The industry works with government agencies, communities and other stakeholders to employ advanced sustainability practices benefitting the economy, environment and society and transparently reports on their performance. I am pleased to announce that the industry has met the greenhouse gas emissions and safety goals ahead of schedule. These companies are committed to sustainability along the entire value chain, starting with the renewable resources they acquire to make their products. AF&PA members procured 98 percent of their fiber through certified fiber sourcing programs and have also increased the amount of fiber procured from certified forestlands to 29 percent. Also, AF&PA companies are strong proponents of international efforts to suppress illegal logging and to reduce the demand for illegally harvested forest products. AF&PA's mandatory Environment, Health & Safety Principles require that members have health and safety policies in place. Implementing worker training, increased automation, and a host of injury preventive measures and safeguards allowed AF&PA members to reduce their incidence rate by 40.8 percent between 2006 and 2014. These companies are committed to continue to look for new ways to reach their aspirational goal of zero workplace injuries. The industry's purchased energy efficiency improved by 8.1 percent due to investments in energy efficiency projects. Many pulp and paper mills are largely energy self-sufficient, 56 percent of electricity needed to power manufacturing processes was self-generated, and, in some cases, supplying energy to the electric utility grid. Improved energy efficiency and the use of less carbon-intensive fuels and carbon-neutral biomass enabled the industry to significantly reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. These companies reduced their greenhouse gas emissions by 16 percent, surpassing the goal of 15-percent reduction. Water is a valuable natural resource and a vital component of the papermaking process. The forest products industry directly returns about 88 percent of the water it withdraws and uses in its manufacturing processes. Ongoing technology and innovation enable water to be reused and recycled 10 times, on average, throughout the pulp and paper mill process before it is treated in a wastewater system and returned to the environment. So far, water use at these pulp and paper mills was reduced by 6.5 percent since 2005. The industry's commitment to sustainability extends beyond the manufacturing process: More than 60 percent of paper consumed in the U.S. was recovered for recycling each year since 2009, reaching a record 66.8 percent in 2015. Paper recovery success is possible thanks to the millions of Americans who continue to recycle at home, work, and school every day. In 2014, 96 percent of the U.S. population had access to community curbside and/or drop-off paper recycling services. AF&PA works to promote paper recovery by creating materials to educate consumers about best recycling practices. I ask my colleagues to join us in congratulating this industry on taking steps to improve environmental performance, continue economic progress and support our communities. I am proud of this industry's progress and their continued commitment to advance sustainability performance.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, this is a national security measure. It is a national security measure. It is about protecting our country. The preamble of the United States Constitution--which establishes the reason this country was founded, the reason the Constitution was passed--says that the most solemn obligation we have is to insure domestic tranquility and provide for the common defense. That is keeping people safe, and that is what this amendment is about. Sure, it touches on guns, but what it is really about is keeping guns out of the hands of terrorists. It is straightforward. It is simple. It is easy to understand. There should be no controversy about this. It has due process built in. It has a provision built in that might have prevented the tragedy that occurred in Orlando. Many of my colleagues talk about our being at war and being in conflict. We are in conflict. People want to do us harm. And why we would want to facilitate their arming themselves within our own country? It makes no sense. This is about national security. It is the most solemn obligation we have. This amendment should go through this body and the other body in the next few days, or we are failing our responsibility to the American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Amanda Bennett, an intern in my office, be granted the privileges of the floor for today.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I first want to begin by reading a note I got this morning at 7 o'clock from a member of my staff in Maine. I think it speaks to the issues we are discussing today in this body and should be discussing in the other body. My regional representative said: Last night I attended the Southern Maine Planning and Development Corporation Annual Meeting in Sanford. That is a town in Southern Maine. From the time I walked in the door, through dinner and even walking back to my car, every single person I spoke with either wanted me to convey their thanks to Senator King for his stand on ``doing something on gun control'' to asking me that he stand firm and do more. People who own guns (and said so) and those who don't. Every single person expressed dismay that Congress has not acted on this. Many mentioned the sit- in in the House of Representatives and were shocked that the issue would not even get a vote. Many wanted to know when the vote would be taken in the Senate. People in Maine, including responsible gun owners, want more background checks and limitations on those who raise red flags. They want common sense legislation. I had to send this because I was quite surprised at the total focus on this issue. I hope we will have before us sometime today an amendment which I consider a national security issue. Since being in this body, I have been privileged to serve on both the Armed Services and Intelligence Committees and have studied and worked on and listened to hearing after hearing on the terrorism threat to this country. Something important has to happen with regard to that threat over the last 3 or 4 years. We have moved into a new era of threats to our country, different than the terrorism threat we found ourselves facing after 9/11. In 2001, that plot was hatched overseas, it involved foreigners who got to our shores one way or another and performed a heinous attack on our country. Now we are facing attacks from within--people who are already here are radicalized online and receive what I call a terrorist APB from ISIS or Al Qaeda that basically says: Go out and do harm to Americans. The difference is the threat is now here and not abroad--although, it may be inspired and, in some cases, directed from abroad. I call this terrorism 2.0. It raises an entirely new national security issue for us; that is, how do these terrorists obtain arms? With ISIS, if we are aware of an arms shipment or a cache of arms somewhere in Syria or Iraq, we take it out. We send our fighter planes. We send any resources we have to keep them from getting those arms. If an ISIS-inspired terrorist in the United States wants to obtain arms, all they have to do is go to a gun store and buy them. It makes no sense to me that we spend millions of dollars to keep arms away from terrorists in the Middle East and do nothing to keep arms away from terrorists in the United States. That is why I am supporting, along with a bipartisan group, a nonpartisan group of other Senators, led by Susan Collins of Maine, a commonsense piece of legislation that will simply add to the list of those items which prohibit people from getting guns if you are on the no-fly list or the selectee list--those people who are required to have additional screening at an airport. This is about as simple and as common sense as it gets. To vote against this is basically saying it is OK with us that terrorist people on the no-fly list get a gun. I can't understand any argument that would justify that. The provision Senator Collins has painstakingly developed, with consultation with both sides of the aisle, has in it due process protections for someone who may be on one of these lists, either inadvertently through a mistake or improperly. They have the opportunity to say: I shouldn't be on the list, I should be able to buy a gun, and they have an opportunity to make that case in a very limited period of time and to have their chance to obtain full due process to protect their constitutional right. This is a well-balanced, thoughtful proposal. It is not taking anybody's guns. It is not a ban on any kind of weapon. It simply says: No guns for terrorists. It seems to me that is a basic, commonsense amendment, and I really can't understand why it has become so difficult to move it forward. We had a filibuster last week. As a result of that filibuster, we ended up having several votes on this issue earlier this week, and I hope and believe we are going to have at least one more either today or early next week on the Collins amendment. However, in the House of Representatives, there is no vote whatsoever, to the point where Members of the House have had to take to the floor and literally take over the floor and say: We are not leaving until we get a vote. I guess I would call it a House version of a filibuster. I think it is important to emphasize that the people in the House are not saying ``We are going to stay here until we pass legislation,'' they are saying ``Let's have a vote. That is our job.'' If you ask any sixth grader what Senators and Representatives do, they will tell you that we vote on legislation. That is what we are supposed to be doing, and that is why we are here. I find it inexplicable that the majority in the House adjourned to take a vacation for the next 10 days without even allowing a vote or any debate on this issue. I mean, it looks ridiculous to the people of this country. My suspicion is that when many of those Representatives get home over the next few days, their constituents are going to say: What gives? This thing about terrorists seems to make sense to me. Why didn't you get something done on this? I hope and believe that is what will happen. But for the Members of the House to take this extraordinary step, which I understand has only happened one or two other times in our history, in order to simply get a vote on an issue that is an absolute top-of-the-line concern to the people of the United States, again--it just doesn't make sense. One of the reasons Congress is held in such low esteem is because we are not doing our jobs. People send us here to do a job and wrestle with difficult issues, not to suppress them, not to push them under the rug, not to ignore them, but to debate and discuss and try to come up with commonsense solutions. Indeed, that is what we have done here in the Senate. I have been working on this for the past 48 hours. I have had consultations with other Senators. We are trying to get the language right and trying to find ways to accommodate various interests and concerns about this bill, and hopefully we will get to the floor and have a vote. The other body is not allowing that to happen. I think this is an issue of real importance to the American people, and I sense a very significant change in terms of people's views on this issue. I understand there was a poll released just this morning which showed that 85 to 90 percent of the American people believe we should try to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists--no fly, no buy. It is a very simple message. Interestingly, that showed that the highest percentage of people who agreed with that proposition were Republicans. Ninety percent of the Republicans who responded to the CNN poll felt that terrorists should be kept from getting guns, and that is what this amendment which we are going to be considering is all about. It seems to me that this is a case where Congress has an opportunity to do what we are supposed to do, which is not to avoid, not to obfuscate, not to sweep under the rug, but to act. I can't presuppose the outcome. I believe and hope that the outcome will be positive and that we will take action on this commonsense amendment Senator Collins has developed, but at least let's act. I hope the other body will do the same thing. To adjourn for a recess prematurely simply because they don't want to confront or discuss or debate this issue brings discredit on this entire institution and is greatly to be regretted. I come from a State that believes in the Second Amendment. I believe in the Second Amendment. I have insisted through this process that anything that limits a person's ability to get guns if they are on a no-fly list or a selectee list needs to have due process in order to be sure that they are properly on that list and that there is good cause for them not to be able to purchase guns. I believe that process should be there, and it is there. This is in no way a violation of the Second Amendment. It is in no way an effort to take anybody's guns away. It is an effort to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. And the Supreme Court has affirmed over and over--even Justice Scalia has affirmed directly and unequivocally--that this is appropriate under the Second Amendment. I commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have developed this commonsense proposal. I hope we can pass it today by an overwhelming vote, and maybe that will help persuade the other body to at least consider, discuss, debate, and then vote on this issue that is of vital concern to the American people. I yield the floor to the Senator from Delaware.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the town of Georgetown, ME, which is celebrating its 300th anniversary this month. This small, coastal town, with just over 1,000 inhabitants, has a long and proud history dating back to the 18th century, and I am pleased to join them in celebrating their tricentennial and honoring the town's cherished place in the State of Maine. Nestled among one of the many inlets of Maine's rugged coastline near the mouth of the Kennebec River, Georgetown has a long and storied past dating back to the end of the 17th century. During the King Philip's and King William's wars in the late 1600s, the Kennebec River Valley was a war-torn and volatile area, but a small settlement emerged after the conflicts. In 1716, the town of Georgetown-on-Arrowsic was incorporated and has remained an iconic landmark on the Maine coast ever since. Today Georgetown is known for its picturesque landscape and quaint, smalltown feel. It is home to boat builders, fishermen, retirees, summer residents, and artists alike. Summer visitors can enjoy the town's famous Reid State Park, historic lighthouses, and the many land preserves protected through the community's dedication to preservation and environmental sustainability. Even when the winter comes and the summer residents leave, a cohesive and engaged year-round population remains. The town and its citizens represent the best of Maine's historic coastal villages: a close-knit and hard-working community surrounded by striking natural beauty. Led by its dedicated tricentennial committee, Georgetown will commemorate its 300th anniversary with an all-day celebration on June 23. Scheduled events include the burying of a time capsule, a town parade, and presentation of special tricentennial products from local businesses and organizations. These events mark the culmination of over a year of collaboration between local government, nonprofits, and local businesses who have worked together to create a truly amazing celebration fitting of this tremendous milestone. I commend all that the people of Georgetown have done to make their town such a special place to live and visit. Their shared love for their hometown and commitment to its success has made Georgetown one of Maine's greatest communities. I am proud to recognize this historic milestone and wish the town many more years of success.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. And that is really the essence of what the Senator is talking about. As I understand it, there are two parts of what we are talking about today. By the way, the Senator is not talking about an assault weapons ban or magazine control or any of those things; we are really talking about two things. The first is the terrorist watch list. If you are on the list, you can't buy a gun. No fly, no buy. The second is to fill the loophole in the background check system because, as I understand the Senator's argument, if we say ``If you are on the watch list, you can't buy a gun,'' but there is this gaping 40 percent loophole where you could get a gun without any check whatsoever, then it doesn't matter. Anybody--a felon or anybody--could get a gun under that circumstance. Is that the logical progression?

Mr. KING. I thank the Senator. I thank him for his answers and thank him for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. KING. I wish to discuss with the Senator and bring back the point we were discussing some 4 hours ago. It is hard to believe that it was some 4 hours ago, but this is really a national security discussion. This is really a national security discussion because of the changed nature of our adversaries and the changed strategy that they have for attacking us. But first I want to go back to the Constitution, and purely by coincidence today I am wearing the Constitution. My daughter bought me this tie at the Library of Congress, and it is the handwritten version of the Constitution. You can see ``We the People'' in very large letters. Why are governments formed, why are constitutions written? Going back to the earliest human societies, the fundamental function of bestowing power on the government is to protect you. Security is the fundamental, most sacred obligation of any government. And our Framers recognized that because in the preamble to the Constitution--the heart of the document, why we are doing this--the Framers were explaining to posterity, and two of the fundamental purposes, among several others, are to ensure domestic tranquility and provide for the common defense-- the basic function of any government and the explicit function of our government. Now, here are three important dates: 1812, 2001, and 2016. There is 1812 because that was the last time an adversary violated our shores. That was when Washington was burned by the British. It was the last invasion of America until 2001, but 2001 and 1812 have some similarities because 2001 was, in effect, a foreign invasion. It was plotted abroad, it was planned abroad, and people came here from outside of our shores and attacked our country. Now, in response to that attack in 2001, we mobilized a number of resources. We developed ways of protecting our aircraft, we developed great intelligence, an ability to determine when people were plotting against us, and indeed we sent our blood and treasure and young people to Afghanistan because it was a haven for terrorists. That was the reason we went there and in fact are still there--to keep that country from becoming an incubator for terrorists to attack this country, and we have been effective. We have been effective in preventing an attack on our country from abroad. So as is always the case with warfare, our adversaries have developed a new strategy, and that is why the third date I mentioned is 2016. It was in the last few years, particularly in the last year, as ISIS has begun to be beaten back and to lose its territory in Syria and Iraq, that they have developed a new strategy which doesn't involve sending people here. It doesn't involve sending arms here or bombs or anything else. It involves using the Internet to radicalize people who are already here--often they are U.S. citizens--and then turn them against us. That is the new nature. This is terrorism 2.0. That is the nature of the struggle we are in now, and that is why the amendment that is being proposed makes so much sense from the point of national security. If we discover an arms cache in Syria, we bomb it, but if ISIS wants to attack us here with terrorism 2.0, we sell them weapons. It makes no sense. The first rule of warfare is disarm your enemies, if you can, and that is exactly what we are talking about. I think a lot of people just say: Well, this is just another gun control debate. We are talking about gun control. We are talking about national security. We are talking about defending ourselves from a strategy that relies upon people being able to acquire guns easily in this country--people who are terrorists or who are inspired by the terrorists or who want to be terrorists. And we can't have a bill that says you have to have probable cause to show you have already committed a terrorist act. That is too late. It has to be prevented, and that is what we are talking about here today. So I think it is very important to remind ourselves that this is really a national security bill, and it makes no sense to close the terrorist loophole unless you close the gun show loophole because the terrorists aren't stupid. The terrorist APB they send out from somewhere else in the world to tell somebody to get a gun and kill people will also say, by the way, do it at a gun show or do it online because they will not check you. My colleague already read a quote from the Al Qaeda operative who explicitly told people to do that. So if we don't do both things, it really is a false security. We are kidding ourselves. So we have to, one, close the terrorist loophole. I would venture to say 90 percent of the American people agree to that. If you were to walk up to people on the street and say: Do you think people should be prevented from getting on airplanes but they should be able to buy guns, they would look at you like you were crazy. That doesn't make any sense. Yes, there are constitutional provisions built into the amendment we are talking about that allow people who are wrongfully on that list to have an opportunity to get off the list and to contest that designation. So this isn't some kind of wholesale violation of the Second Amendment. This respects the Second Amendment and is based upon the premise that due process is available in this situation. Then we have to close the gun show loophole and the online loophole because otherwise doing the first thing just isn't going to be effective. So the two things together, to me, are national security and personal security because of all the other tragedies that we have talked about tonight that don't involve Al Qaeda or ISIS or al-Nusra or al-Shabaab or any of the other terrorist organizations but involve our individual citizens being killed in just stunning numbers. Since we have started talking here today--since the Senator took this floor--a dozen people have been murdered by guns--one an hour, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. So we have a national security reason to do this, and we have also-- remember, the preamble, and I will finish with my question. The preamble has two pieces: provide for the common defense. That is what I have been talking about--national security. Insure domestic tranquility. That means keeping people safe here, not from enemies abroad but from criminal elements within our own society--again, the most fundamental and sacred obligation of ``we'' as a government. If we don't do this, we are committing constitutional malpractice. We are not abiding by the most sacred obligation in our Constitution--to keep our people safe. It can be done consistent with the Second Amendment, respectful of the Second Amendment, but in a way that will fundamentally realize the promise the Constitution makes to all Americans; that their government will protect them from foreign attack and from domestic unrest. So I ask the Senator: Does he view this as, in large measure, a national security issue?

Mr. KING. I say to the Senator, I have a series of questions and some comments. First, I come from a predominantly rural State with a very high number of gun owners, a very low rate of gun crime. What you are talking about here today, adding the terrorist watch list as one of the elements of the background check and covering the noncovered parts of gun sales, online gun shows, will that have any practical effect on the gun owners in Maine?

Mr. KING. If you are for the Second Amendment, there are no limitations whatsoever, and if you talk about limitations, you are against the Second Amendment. Do you accept that characterization?

Mr. KING. It will have no practical effect. They will still be able to buy guns in either place. They would have to go through the instant background check and the law as if they were a felon or something like that. Then they would be prevented. But other than that, this isn't going to have any practical effect on the practical law-abiding gun owners in Maine?

Mr. KING. I want to take a slightly different view than I have heard today on the issue of terrorism. I am on the Intelligence Committee. Every Tuesday afternoon and Thursday afternoon that we are in session we meet upstairs in a closed room. Ever since I have been here in January of 2013, the subject in one way or another has been terrorism, has been the threats that this country is facing around the world. What has happened in the last 4 years is a subtle change in the nature of that threat. When we first came, we were talking about Al Qaeda. We were talking about plots. We were talking about people coming here using airplanes, otherwise penetrating this country from abroad. What has happened is that the terrorist threat has become homegrown. In fact, there is even a term for it of homegrown extremists or local terrorists. ISIS is here. Every place there is a computer with an Internet connection, ISIS is there, and people like the shooter in Orlando may never go to the Middle East. I think he actually had traveled, but many of the people involved in this threat to our Nation never leave the United States. So here is what we are doing, and here is why your amendment makes so much sense. We are spending millions of dollars--in fact, billions over the past 15 years--to counteract this terrorist threat, and it suddenly occurred to me, as I was thinking through it, we are spending millions of dollars to bomb ISIS's weapons supplies in Syria and Iraq, and they can buy their weapons here. How much sense does that make? It is just crazy that we are spending millions of dollars to interdict their weapons supply and yet the people who are here, who are under their thrall, who are thinking about terrorist acts and whom they are inspiring to these acts, can walk out and get a gun without any hesitation as long as they do not violate one of the terms of the current law. The other piece of this that I think is important is that the current law that has the list of prohibitions--mental illness, felony, domestic violence, and there are nine--was passed in 1993. The world is enormously and fundamentally different than it was in 1993. In 1993 we had barely heard of Al Qaeda. There was no ISIS. There was very little threat or acknowledgment or understanding of domestic terrorism whatsoever. But now we are in terrorism 2.0. What happened in Orlando is exactly what we have been hearing about in the Intelligence Committee, what has been predicted by all our intelligence officials, and what many of us have been talking about. It is the nightmare scenario of an American who is radicalized online, who goes out and gets a gun and kills 50 people. That is the hardest threat to stop because there is no plot, there is no email trail, and there are very few phone calls. There is nothing. It is hard for our intelligence community to track someone like that. But if we have some knowledge of them, if they are in our database--to me, it just makes common sense that should be added to the list of disqualifications for buying guns. This is no threat to anybody who is not on such a list. And I understand--and the Senator can please comment--the legislation we are talking about has a constitutional escape hatch for people who are wrongly on the list or whose names are mixed up, and they will have an opportunity to protest that list and to have their names expunged if they can make the case that there was something wrong with their being on the list; is that correct?

Mr. KING. But if someone says: Well, if that is such a small number, why are we bothering? Because it only takes one to kill a number of people.

Mr. KING. And I find it hard to believe that if we were debating that law in 1993 under the current circumstances, that some cognizance wouldn't have been taken of the risk of domestic terrorists.

Mr. KING. By the way, I would mention that since the Senator has been on the floor today, 10 people have been murdered with guns. It is about one an hour. Since the Orlando shooting, 100 people--twice as many as in Orlando--have been murdered with guns. So we are talking about Orlando, but we are also talking about people all over the country, mostly innocent people, sometimes people who are victims of domestic violence. We are not talking about taking guns away from people; we are just talking about keeping people who shouldn't have them from getting guns. And I have never met a gun owner who doesn't agree that is just a commonsense restriction. Does my colleague view this in any way as a violation of the Second Amendment?

Mr. KING. Don't you think one of the problems with this debate as it has evolved over the past few years is that it has become a kind of either/or?

Mr. KING. Well, this solution being proposed, even if it only prevents 1 person, that could mean 50 lives or 100 lives. I think that is important. By the way, it is a dirty trick, Senator, to quote Justice Scalia on this subject. He did make it clear in the Heller decision, as you point out, that the Second Amendment, as the First Amendment or any of the amendments, is not absolute. People say the First Amendment says Congress shall make no law respecting speech, but you can't yell ``fire'' in a crowded theater. That is established law. And Justice Scalia, in the Heller decision, said the same thing about the Second Amendment. It is not absolute. There are limitations that can be placed upon it, particularly in the transfer of firearms, and I think that is what we are talking about here. So I commend the Senator, and I believe what we are talking about-- and let me go back to the Intelligence Committee for a minute. It took me 2 or 3 months--maybe I am a slow learner--but as I was sitting in the Intelligence Committee, I finally had two really visceral insights. One was that we are the only people watching the intelligence community; that we have this large apparatus, and we have these small committees in the House and the Senate, and we are the only people watching. That is not relevant to this debate, but that was an important realization imposed upon me, and what I thought was an extraordinary responsibility to pay close attention to what these agencies are doing. The second insight was that the fundamental role of the Intelligence Committee and, I would argue, the fundamental role of this body is to constantly monitor and calibrate the tension that exists between two fundamental provisions of the Constitution--in this case, three. The first is in the preamble--the fundamental reason this government was formed in the first place--to insure domestic tranquility and provide for the common defense. That is the essence of any government, the fundamental, sacred responsibility. Then we have the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, and the Fourth and Fifth Amendments that have issues of privacy and issues of gun ownership, and we have to constantly balance and calibrate those provisions based upon technology and reality, circumstances, and facts. We have a new set of facts. We are facing a threat today in the United States that is different from what we have ever faced before, where we have people who are being motivated from abroad mostly but are in our society, in our country--this fellow in Orlando was an American citizen, was born here--and we have to take cognizance of that. We have to take account of that reality. If we don't, we are failing, it seems to me, our fundamental responsibility under the preamble of the Constitution to provide for the common defense. That is what the American people expect us to do--to keep them safe--and this is simply one piece of the armor we can provide to keep the people of America safe. I would conclude with a question to the Senator. Is there any hope of getting this accomplished? Where are we? Why is this so hard? This seems to be a commonsense response. I read a quote from the NRA today that said: We believe that terrorists should not have guns. So is there room for discussion, for compromise? Does my colleague feel there is an opportunity here to get to a place where we can respond to this new threat that is facing us without in any way compromising the values of the Second Amendment?

Mr. KING. But my understanding is the amendment as proposed does provide a specific process whereby a person who believes they are wrongfully on the list, wrongfully denied the opportunity to purchase a firearm, has the opportunity to contest that, to have it litigated, and have it resolved in a reasonably prompt manner.

Mr. KING. One of the odd things about this debate is that if this had been 15 years ago, I don't think we would even be having this debate. Background checks were generally uncontroversial. If we had would have had the terrorist threat, I couldn't believe--we have domestic violence on there. How about terrorism violence? That should be a part of this as well. That is all you are really proposing. Is that correct? (Mr. SCOTT assumed the Chair.)

Mr. KING. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. KING. On February 15, 2015, Dabiq, which is the sort of public newspaper of ISIS, published an explicit strategy for what they hope will become a worldwide conflict. The strategy is that westerners will fall into the trap of persecuting Muslims and drive them into the arms of radicals. That is the strategy. So to the extent that we persecute and marginalize these overwhelmingly peaceful citizens who want to be citizens of our country or citizens of other countries in the world, we are doing their job. They said that is what we want to do and indeed some people in our society have fallen into that trap and are doing it. This is exactly what they want because they want this to be a war between Islam and the West. Do we really want to radicalize 1.6 billion people and 3.3 million here in this country, the vast majority of whom want nothing more than what the rest of us want, which is to raise our families and live our lives and enjoy the benefits of this wonderful country. So I agree with the Senator and would ask him if he concurs that if we are marginalizing people of any faith, then in this particular case we are driving them into the arms of our adversaries.

Mr. KING. I thank the Senator for his answers and for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the outstanding devotion of Carrie Walia, who has worked to preserve Maine's rich outdoor heritage throughout her career. Carrie is stepping down from her position as executive director of Loon Echo Land Trust, and we recognize her service and thank her for her contribution to the great State of Maine. In her role as executive director of Loon Echo Land Trust, LELT, Ms. Walia has invested deeply in the environmental sustainability of Maine's communities, specifically the Sebago Lakes region. That region has long been a renowned outdoor recreation area, attracting outdoor enthusiasts of all kinds. From boating to ice fishing, locals and visitors alike enjoy the natural beauty and tremendous resources it has to offer. Under Ms. Walia's leadership, LELT has been successful in preserving the region's beauty and ensuring its sustainability for years to come. Ms. Walia joined LELT in 2004, while also working for the USDA- Natural Resources Conservation Service. Since becoming the executive director of LELT in 2008, she has spearheaded many conservation efforts with tremendous success. Her accomplishments include doubling LELT's conservation lands from 3,300 to 6,600 acres and securing over $5.5 million in grants for high priority land acquisitions. She leaves LELT poised for continued success working on behalf of Maine communities. I would like to join LELT and the people of Maine in recognizing and thanking Ms. Walia for her work and dedication to our great State. Her groundbreaking work with LELT has helped to preserve Maine's valuable natural resources and contribute to Maine's status as a leader in nature conservation and environmental stewardship. The State of Maine owes Ms. Walia immensely for all her hard work, and I wish her all the best in her retirement.