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

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I really appreciate the leadership of Senator Murphy and his effort to see that the Senate addresses commonsense gun legislation. It is probably around the hour when people are getting home, and they are wondering why we are here, why the Senator is choosing to hold the floor in this extended debate.

People should know that our Nation has seen a string of gun tragedies. The Senator's home State of Connecticut saw the horrific Sandy Hook shooting of young children. In San Bernardino we saw an ISIL-inspired terrorist attack. This terrorist slaughtered his former coworkers--innocent people. In Orlando, a disturbed man, perhaps inspired by ISIL, murdered 49 people in cold blood. This was an assault on the LGBT community--a hate crime. In the last week, in my home State of New Mexico, we have seen some terrible gun tragedies. A man is now accused of murdering his wife and four children in Roswell, NM.

There are so many tragedies, and they all have different reasons. But one thing that almost all of us agree on is that we must do more to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of people who mean harm to others or to themselves. You should have to pass a background check to buy a gun. If you are a risk to others because of a history of making threats or because you may be affiliated with a known terrorist organization, law enforcement should be able to step in and prevent you from buying weapons.

The first thing I wanted to ask the Senator from Connecticut, for people who are just tuning in right now, is this: What are the two amendments that you are seeking to vote on today, and how would they help stem this tied of horrific violence that we are seeing across the country, and as you have continually pointed out happens every day?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I ask the Senator this, through the Chair. My offices in New Mexico today received many calls asking why Democrats are on the floor debating the Second Amendment. I would like to ask the Senator from Connecticut if this is an accurate assessment of today's debate.

It is my understanding--and I believe most of my colleagues would agree--that the Supreme Court has settled this issue. Congress can't take away that right. President Obama can't take away that right.

What we are doing here today is taking steps to ensure that dangerous people are not able to buy a gun. Is that the Senator's understanding?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. UDALL. I would ask an additional question here. Last week, several of us announced a ``we the people'' government reform package, and I plan to introduce that bill tomorrow. The bill includes several pieces. It has Senator Whitehouse's DISCLOSE Act, which would require mandatory disclosure of all special interest campaign donations. It also includes my good friend Senator Bennet's legislation to strengthen lobbying laws.

I bring this up because I think it highlights the reason for Congress's inaction on gun violence. We have been here before after the tragedy in Connecticut at Sandy Hook. We stood here and debated many of the same issues, including expanding background checks, closing the gun show loophole, limiting the capacity of magazines--things that should have been passed but weren't.

I wish to ask my friend from Connecticut: Do you think our inability to pass commonsense gun safety legislation is in any way connected to the flood of money in our campaigns from special interests?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. UDALL. I ask one additional question through the Chair.

Many New Mexicans live in very rural areas near the border with Mexico. Carrying a gun is not unusual in those areas. It is a different way of life than in Connecticut or anywhere on the east coast. For example, the entire State of Connecticut is about 5,500 square miles, with a population of 3.5 million. Hidalgo County, NM, one of our 33 counties in southwestern New Mexico, is almost 3,500 square miles and has a population of fewer than 5,000. Many of the ranches there are tens of thousands of acres. They are in the remote boot heel area of the State, a region that is divided by mountain ranges and that borders Mexico on two sides. So I understand why many New Mexicans feel safer carrying a firearm. They might be miles from the closest help. It might take law enforcement a significant time to reach them. So I certainly don't want to do anything to infringe on their right to protect themselves with a firearm.

But I would ask my friend from Connecticut who has worked on this issue so long and understands this so well, would any of the proposals we are asking to get a vote on take away their rights to purchase or own a firearm?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source