Harry Reid

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senate suffered a notable and stunning defeat of bipartisanship this week during the debate over background checks. They said a week ago we would never get on the bill, but the Senate joined together and we got on the bill. Then yesterday, as I have indicated earlier, we got a significant majority of the Senate voting to move forward on this background check. Ninety percent of the Democrats, which is in keeping with the American people, and four valiant Republicans joined to put us where we are today. But the week did not bring only bad news from the legislative front. A bipartisan group of eight of my Senate colleagues--it would never have happened a few years ago, but it is going to happen now. As I indicated, quoting Senator Schumer, background checks is about where immigration was just a few years ago. A bipartisan group of my Senate colleagues--four Democrats and four Republicans--from all different political persuasions introduced a comprehensive plan to reform our broken immigration system. Senators Schumer, McCain, Durbin, Menendez, Graham, Bennet, Rubio, and Flake worked very hard on this legislation. All one needs to do is look at the legislative pedigree of these eight Senators. They are all over the book--liberal, conservative, moderate. And that is the way it should be. I commend each of them for setting partisanship aside--both Democrats and Republicans setting partisanship aside--on an issue that is critical to our great Nation. The four Democrats did not get everything I wanted in that legislation they now have before the American people. They did not give me, they did not give Democrats everything they wanted in these negotiations. But, as I have said on this floor numerous times, that is what legislating is. It is the art of compromise. It is not the art of getting everything you want. I have been in this body a long time, and I have been very fortunate to put my name on things that have passed here, and I have helped guide things through this Senate in the last many years. I have to on occasion swallow hard and say: Well, we are going to have to compromise here to get this done. That is what we need to do. People have been in a situation where they have been unwilling to compromise. There are things that have happened in the great history of this body that have come by compromise. I have never ever gotten everything I wanted. Republicans in these negotiations dealing with immigration, I guarantee you, did not get everything they wanted, just as Democrats did not. But I am satisfied with this legislation. It continues to secure our borders, the northern and southern borders. It improves our dysfunctional legal immigration system. Our immigration system is broken, and has been for quite some time, and needs to be fixed. Another thing that is important, it requires 11 million people who are undocumented to pass a criminal background check, pay fines, start on a path to citizenship, and, yes, learn English. It does not put them at the head of the line; it puts them at the back of the line. It takes about 12 or 13 years to finally get up there. But at least the program is moving forward. I look forward to hearings on this measure that will be led by Senator Leahy. Mr. President, I want to take a minute to commend Chairman Leahy. He is the most senior Member of the Senate, he is the President pro tempore of the Senate, but he also has an important responsibility as chairman of the Judiciary Committee. The reason we were able to get the legislation on the floor that we have been working on this past few weeks is because of Senator Leahy, because he had his committee--even though, as I have just indicated, Senator Leahy did not agree with everything that came out of that committee of his; he comes from the State of Vermont which is much different than other places people on that committee come from around the country, but he brought it forward, and everything we voted on as the base bill came out of that committee. It is the same as is going to happen on immigration. Senators--these eight--a significant number of them want to do hearings. They want to have a markup. Other Senators said: Let's just move to the floor. Well, there are a number of Senators who believe it should come out of the committee first, so that is what is going to happen. So I commend Senator Leahy for agreeing to do this. He is going to have a hearing tomorrow and another one on Monday. He has estimated a time for the markup. So I commend him for his leadership with Judiciary. I repeat, I look forward to hearings on this measure before the committee, and to a thoughtful debate on the Senate floor. We are going to have ample time to discuss and consider this legislation. I am going to do what I can to get this bill across the finish line, which I think we are going to do. I think we are going to do it pretty soon.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Madam President, this bears repeating: We knew all along that efforts to pass stronger background checks and keep guns out of the hands of criminals wouldn't be easy, and it hasn't been. But keeping America's streets safe from gun violence is worth the effort. Yesterday the families of gun violence victims watched as Republicans defeated a commonsense proposal to expand background checks. It is supported by 90 percent of the American people. It is not some hocus- pocus. What it says is that if a person is a criminal, that person shouldn't be able to buy a gun. It says that if a person has severe mental issues, that person shouldn't be able to buy a gun. That is all it said. Yesterday the families of gun violence victims watched, but despite the fact that a strong majority of the American people feel this way, we weren't able to get this done. Despite the fact that a strong majority of the Senate voted in favor of stronger background checks--a strong majority--Republicans once again filibustered a commonsense proposal. We were able to get 4 Republicans--4 out of 45. Yesterday President Obama said it was a shameful day for the Senate, and it probably was, I agree. But we should make no mistake; this debate is not over. In fact, this fight is just beginning. I have spoken with the President. He and I agree that the best way to keep working toward passing a background check bill is to hit ``pause'' and freeze the background check bill where it is. In the meantime, we will keep moving forward with the people from Aurora, CO, Blacksburg, VA, Newtown, CT, and other places to make sure we are able to get something done. This will allow Senators to keep negotiating. We had nine amendments yesterday. They were not easy to vote on--not for us or for the Republicans--and I understand that. But it was a good process by which to move forward and get some of these contentious amendments on both sides out of the way--or voted on, rather, is a better way to phrase it. So we are going to come back to this bill. I feel obligated to Senator Stabenow. She should have an opportunity to offer her amendment on mental health. I feel an obligation to Senator Coburn. He should be able to offer his amendment on background checks. I feel an obligation to a number of Senators who believe we have to do a better job dealing with the issue of veterans. So we are going to have time to work on what people want to do before we come back to this. It will give opponents an opportunity to decide what they want to do when we get back on this, and it will give gun violence advocates time to make their voices heard by Republican Senators. This option will preserve the progress we have made on the bill. We passed a couple of amendments today--we passed a Republican amendment and a Democratic amendment. I suggest to the Senate that this option will prevent us from having to return to square one procedurally, and I think that is good. I am committed to ensuring that any bill we pass includes an expansion of background checks, closing the gun show loophole, as well as covering private sales. This afternoon I am going to file cloture on the motion to proceed to the Marketplace Fairness Act, which would give brick-and-mortar stores parity with Internet-only retailers. It is only a matter of time before we bring this anti-gun violence measure back to the floor for a vote. The stand of the Republicans is not sustainable. It is a question of how long they are going to stand firm, but it is not sustainable. I assure the 90 percent of Americans who support meaningful background checks that I am going to continue this fight. I assure the families of Newtown and Aurora and Tucson and Blacksburg that we are going to continue to stand by their side. To those Senators who have indicated they want to offer amendments, we will be back and try to do another tranche of amendments, and when we get there, I hope we can proceed the way we did this week to line up amendments.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Madam President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 41, S. 743.

Mr. REID. Madam President, I have a cloture motion at the desk.

Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, this resolution concerns a pro se civil action filed in Kentucky federal district court against Senator McConnell, Vice President Biden, and Senate Sergeant at Arms Gainer. Plaintiff claims that the Senate cloture rule is unconstitutional. This lawsuit, like previous suits challenging the cloture rule, is subject to jurisdictional defenses requiring dismissal. This resolution would authorize the Senate Legal Counsel to represent Senator McConnell, Vice President Biden, and Sergeant at Arms Gainer to seek dismissal of this suit.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, following leader remarks this morning the Senate will resume consideration of the gun safety legislation. Under an agreement reached yesterday, the debate time until 4 p.m. will be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. At 4 p.m. there will be a series of up to nine votes in relation to amendments to the bill.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am told that S. 743 is due for a second reading.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would object to any further proceedings in regard to this bill.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, today this august body will honor the memory of 20 first grade children. Little babies were gunned down, most of them shot multiple times. But we will also honor the teachers and administrators who were killed that day in Newtown, CT. We are also going to honor with this legislation tens of thousands of others who are killed by guns each year in America. We are going to do that by voting on a number of measures to strengthen the laws to prevent gun violence in this Nation. The families of the innocents killed in Newtown and Aurora, in Carson City and Blacksburg, in Oak Creek and Columbine, deserve these votes. Where do I stand on these Democratic proposals? This afternoon the Senate will vote on a compromise background check proposal crafted by Senators Manchin, Toomey, Kirk, and Schumer--all experienced legislators. I very much appreciate their principled stands on legislation supported by 90 percent of the American people. The American people overwhelmingly support this commonsense proposal which would close gaping loopholes in the law and keep guns out of the hands of bad people--criminals--and people with severe mental illness. What it would not do--what it would not do is create a national registry of guns or gun owners. In fact, that is specifically outlawed in the legislation. I refer everyone to page 27 of the Manchin-Toomey compromise legislation. It not only bans a registry, but it creates a 15-year felony sentence for any government official found storing these gun records. So please start talking about that, all the opponents of this bill. Because it is absolutely false, it is untrue, and it is unfair. Claims that this legislation would create a gun registry are nothing more than shameful scare tactics. If any of my colleagues wish to vote against stronger background checks, go ahead and do it and oppose the will of the American people. That is their right. But the American people have a very long memory. To vote against something that 90 percent of the American people want, the American people are not going to forget about that. The opponents of the will of the American people should not spread misinformation or sow seeds of fear about this critical antiviolence legislation. But that is what they are doing, that is what they have done, and it is absolutely false and misleading. Assault weapons, we are going to vote on Senator Feinstein's proposal to ban assault weapons. She has been stalwart in her advocacy for this legislation. I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, Americans' right to keep and bear arms. That is how I earned a B grade with the National Rifle Association. When I was a 12-year-old little boy, in Searchlight, NV, my parents sent away for a Sears catalog and bought me a 12 gauge shotgun--a great big gun. That gun held five in the tube and you put one in the chamber--six 12 gauge shotgun shells. I carried a handgun when I was a police officer and, frankly, on other occasions. From where I come from, people own guns as a matter of course--for self-defense and for hunting and for sportsman activities, target shooting. I still go target shooting basically out in my backyard in Searchlight with my grandchildren, but I have always had trouble understanding why people need assault weapons to hunt or to protect their homes or to target shoot. When the assault weapons ban came before the Senate for a vote 10 years ago, I called my friends--one in particular who was a real advocate on guns. He said to me: You know, you can't define an assault weapon. Why are you doing this? You just can't define an assault weapon. He convinced me he was right, so I voted against that. That seemed reasonable to me, and I voted against the ban. Just about a month ago, I called this same friend. I asked if his opinion had changed: Generally, no, but specifically, yes, it had changed. He still opposes a ban on assault weapons. I said: Tell me why. I found his new reasoning absurd, and even though I care a great deal about my friend, he is headed in the wrong direction. So it caused me to reassess my position. He said: Do police have assault weapons? I said: Yes, some of them. He said: If they have them, I want them. Then he said: Does the military have assault weapons? I said: Yes. He said: If they have them, I want them. I thought for some time about what that statement means. It was not a rash decision I made. But what it means is there should be no limits on the kinds of weapons private citizens are allowed to own. I asked myself whether I believe that to be true. The police have riot gear and tear gas and battering rams and others things. Should civilians have them? Obviously, no. The military has rocket-propelled grenades, other kinds of rockets, machine guns, tanks, fighter jets. Should civilians have those also? Please. It does not make sense. So I decided the answer is no. In a civil society, where we have to balance individual rights with public safety, there should be limits-- significant limits--on the kind of destructive weapons people are allowed to own. I believe--I repeat for the second time today--in the right to own a gun to protect your home and your family, to hunt, to go target practicing. I will continue to defend that right as long as I am serving the people of Nevada. But you do not need an assault weapon to defend yourself or your property. Assault weapons have one purpose and one purpose only: to kill a large number of people very quickly. This goes well beyond the purpose of self-defense. The desire to arm ourselves against the young men and women who willingly risk their lives to defend our freedoms--soldiers, sailors, marines; the Navy, the Air Force--is not a reason to oppose an assault weapons ban. The wish to arm ourselves against the police who keep our streets safe is not a reason to oppose an assault weapons ban. I believe as Americans we have a right to arm ourselves against criminals, but we do not need the ability to arm ourselves against the Army or the police. The U.S. military is not out to get us. Federal law enforcement, local police departments, are not out to get us. These conspiracy theories are dangerous and they should be put to rest. In the real world--not this conspiratorial world that some live in--in the real world, in addition to mowing down first graders, assault weapons are used to shoot down the very people who have sworn to protect us. Here is one real-world example in Nevada: After serving 9 months in Afghanistan with his National Guard unit, SSG Ian Michael Deutch was eager to return to his day job as a police officer in Nye County, NV. He could not wait to get back to work. He survived Afghanistan--bombs, bullets, acts of terrorism. He survived. His second day back on the job--second day back on the job--he was shot and killed by a man with an assault weapon with a 30-round clip. Sergeant Deutch was responding to a domestic dispute in Pahrump, NV, when he was shot three times in the chest. One of the bullets even pierced his body armor. An assault weapon pierced the body armor the police officer was wearing. He was airlifted to Las Vegas, rushed into emergency surgery, and he died within a few hours. He was 27 years old, had survived Afghanistan but not America. All 730 soldiers in Michael's squadron returned alive from their tour of duty in Afghanistan. They were so thankful and proud. It was a criminal on the streets of the United States of America, our country, armed with a weapon designed to kill who took Michael's life--his young life. Here is what his mom said: He was finally safe. In our country. And somebody here kills him. That is what she said. That is a tragedy, and it is one we could have prevented by keeping weapons of war off the streets. We can keep them off the streets. We should keep them off the streets. In the 1920s, organized crime was committing murders with machine guns. We have seen them in the movies--the Valentine's Day Massacre. So Congress dramatically limited the sale and transfer of machine guns a long time ago. As a result, machine guns basically disappeared from the streets. They are in the movies, but private citizens do not have them. We can and should take the same commonsense approach to safeguard Americans from modern weapons of war, assault weapons. That is why I will vote for Dianne Feinstein's assault weapons ban; we must strike a better balance between the right to defend ourselves and the right of every child in America to grow up safe from gun violence. I will vote for the ban because maintaining law and order is more important than satisfying conspiracy theorists who believe in black helicopters and false flags. I will vote for the ban because saving the lives of police officers, young and old, and innocent civilians, young and old, is more important than preventing imagined tyranny. High-capacity magazines--clips is what I call them my reason for supporting a ban on large ammunition magazines is similar. These large clips are designed to kill--not to kill a deer or a duck or any other game, large or small, they are designed to kill humans, living, breathing human beings, people from Hawaii, people from Kentucky, people from Nevada--our citizens. They are designed to kill. In fact, it is not even legal to load more than 3 shotgun shells--let alone 30--to hunt birds. I talked to the Presiding Officer earlier about my shotgun. I told him that it could hold six shells, but we had to plug that gun because that was the law. By law, we had to limit the amount of ammo in that shotgun, so we had to plug it so it could only shoot three--two in the magazine, one in the chamber. That way, when you went bird hunting, you gave birds a sporting chance. You could only fire three times. As Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia--the courageous Senator from West Virginia--said, ``I do not know anybody that needs 30 rounds in a weapon to go hunting.'' Take 30 and reload. So why should we not limit the number of bullets in a clip? Don't people deserve as much protection as birds? Limiting magazine size will force shooters bent on taking a life to reload more often. When this madman with the strange-colored hair walked into that Aurora, CO, movie theater with a semiautomatic weapon and a 100-round drum magazine, the only thing that spared many survivors was the fact that the shooter's gun jammed. Think of the carnage, in addition to what already was so bad, that would have taken place. In Tucson, AZ--we met here in Washington yesterday with Gabby Giffords, a woman who was shot right in the head by a man who should have not had a gun. But he emptied a 33-round clip in less than 30 seconds, killing 6 and injuring many more, including Gabby Giffords. In Carson City, NV, a mentally ill man went to an IHOP during breakfast time and killed four people. Three of them were National Guard personnel going to work. He shot 80 rounds in 80 seconds using 30-round clips. Limiting the size of clips will not hurt hunters and sportsmen, but it will save lives. So I am going to vote in support of the Blumenthal- Lautenberg amendment. In the case of Carson City, the example I just gave, let's talk a little bit about mental health. That incident at the IHOP restaurant reveals a tragedy, of course, but also the deficiencies in this Nation's mental health treatment system. That is another important part of our discussion about how to prevent gun violence. We simply have not done a good job of providing funding for and access to mental health services. This should be a bipartisan issue. Going back many years, it was bipartisan--Wellstone-Domenici. While we have done a better job of doing certain things in mental health, we have done a poor job of removing the stigma that keeps Americans from seeking the treatment they need. We must do better. So the bill reported out of the HELP Committee, led my Chairman Harkin, begins the work of improving access to critical services. I hope to be able to have shortly--after we finish this list of amendments--the ability to move to Senator Stabenow's measure. She has worked with others on another bipartisan piece of legislation to go even further in doing something about the mental health problems so that we can alleviate, at least on occasion, these terrible tragedies. As I have said many times, the efforts will not stop every criminal bent on violence, but last year's terrible tragedy in Newtown was a wake-up call that we are not doing enough to keep our citizens safe. It is hard to even comprehend the scope of the tragedy, let alone recover from it, but part of the healing process is this remarkable conversation about how to prevent violence in America. That conversation is taking place in America today because of Boston and because of the thousands of people killed with guns every year. Part of the healing process is examining what can be done to prevent more tragedies such as the ones in Newton, CT; Aurora, CO; Oak Creek, WI; Carson City, NV; and multiple other places. I believe that if we can save the life of a single American, we owe to it ourselves to try. That is going to take courage by some people. President Monson, the president of the Mormon Church, said this about courage: Life's journey is not traveled on a freeway devoid of obstacles, pitfalls and snares. Rather, it is a pathway marked by forks and turnings. Decisions are constantly before us. To make them wisely, courage is needed: the courage to say, ``no,'' the courage to say, ``yes.'' The courage today to say yes. Decisions do determine destiny. Today our decision will determine the destiny of our country. Today I choose to vote my conscience not only as Harry Reid a Senator but also as a husband, a father, a grandfather, and I hope a friend to lots and lots of people. I choose to vote my conscience because if a tragedy strikes again--sorry to say it will--if innocents are gunned down in a classroom, theater, or restaurant, I would have trouble living with myself as a Senator, a husband, a father, a grandfather, and a friend knowing I did not do everything in my power to prevent that.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote by which the Manchin amendment No. 715 was not agreed to.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I could have order, we are going to have three more votes tonight, and we are going to finish a number of things that have already been scheduled on this legislation tomorrow. Senator McConnell and I will meet in the meantime to decide our path forward. So three more votes tonight and then we will finish sometime in the morning. Amendment No. 711

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following leader remarks tomorrow, Thursday, April 18, the Senate resume consideration of S. 649; that the time until noon be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees for debate on the Barrasso and Harkin amendments; that at noon the Senate proceed to votes in relation to the Barrasso and Harkin amendments, in that order, with all other provisions of the previous order remaining in effect.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to a period of morning business until 7:30 p.m. tonight with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Con. Res. 5, and the Senate proceed to its consideration.

Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, this is very important. This good man who was treated so poorly is now going to have his name cleared, to a certain extent, and I give most of the credit to Senator John McCain who has worked tirelessly on this for a long time. I am glad we finally are able to get it done. I am grateful to everyone for making this happen. Jack Johnson, a great heavyweight champion, was a good person.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m., on Thursday, April 18, 2013; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use until later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate resume consideration of S. 649, the gun safety legislation, under the previous order; further, that following the two votes in relation to the amendments to S. 649, the Senate recess until 2 p.m. to allow for caucus meetings, and finally that at 2 p.m. the Senate proceed to executive session, under the previous order.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. There will be two rollcall votes in relation to the Barrasso and Harkin amendments to the gun safety legislation. At approximately 2:15 p.m., there will be a rollcall vote on confirmation of the Torres nomination.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Thursday, April 18, at 2 p.m., the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar Nos. 22 and 23; that there be 15 minutes for debate, equally divided in the usual form prior to votes on the nominations in the order listed; the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nominations; that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the Record; that President Obama be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, following any leader remarks the Senate will be in a period of morning business for an hour. The majority will control the first half, the Republicans the final half. Following morning business the Senate will resume consideration of the Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act, with the time until the recess for the caucus meetings for debate only. The Senate will recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings. Today we will continue to work on a path forward to consider amendments to the gun safety bill. Currently, the Manchin-Toomey amendment on background checks is pending to the bill. Senators will be notified when any votes are scheduled. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, there are two bills at the desk due for a second reading. I would ask, if it is appropriate, for the clerk to report whatever the Chair advises.