Changes that i asked senator gillibrand to make, and i think it would be worthwhile to outline all the changes that have been made to the bill since they were first introduced. I think they demonstrate good faith of the chairman and senator gillibrand. For instance, senator gillibrands bill originally would have made it a federal crime to transfer two or more guns if that person knew that the result would be a violation of state or local law. That would have given states and localities a oneway incentive to address new gun control measures and force the cost of prosecution and incarceration on the federal government. It also would have created for the first time a situation in which violation of state criminal law was an element of federal offense. She took that provision out at my request. I raised similar concerns about the language in the chairmans bill and you also removed that language. Senator gillibrand also accepted major and minor drafting suggestions, including clarifying what intent was necessary to commit a crime, harmonizing penalties, changing the gift exception, altering the directive for the sentencing commission, and others. Chairman has also made changes to his bill at my request compared to when senate s. 54 was originally introduced, it is now directed only at straw purchasers not at all transfers on behalf of another. This allows people to buy for people as part of a legitimate business, it preserves private sales. Now the bill goes to actual straw purchasers, those who purchase a gun on behalf of a prohibited person. Like senator gillibrand, you harmonize penalties at my request and removed references to federalizing violation of state or local law. You made changes regarding sales to persons who do not reside in the state. You took out language concerning materiality of false statements on the forms. Separated the rules for purchase from licensed dealers from those of private sales. Also, limiting the bill to engaging indirectly in the conduct that is already illegal. You have protected the right of lawabiding citizens as i have outlined in ways that i believe were not protected in either the original straw purchasing bill or the original trafficking bill. As a result of the changes to each bill and to their combination in the substitute, the bill now covers only criminals and not lawabiding citizens. Since you have shown good faith, i will now demonstrate mine as well. Some on my side believe the bill needs more work to resolve outstanding issues between now and when the bill goes to the floor. That is something that i hope will happen with the chairmans help. With that understanding and if my amendment is adopted, i will vote to report your bill out today. I thank you for what you have done so far, mr. Chairman. Thank you. I appreciate that. You and i have worked closely on this as we have on a number of things. Our bill is tough on criminals. Its crafted so it wont sweep in private seller and buyer of firearms. But its done in way that we can deter those who abuse the trust of a Firearms Dealer by engaging in straw purchasing. You noted a lot of your concerns are reflected in my substitute amendment. I understand the intent behind the amendment that you are raising. I am concerned the amendment could unduly hamper other Law Enforcement operations that are properry supervised. Including terrorism and drug investigations. We all agree that the government should never permit guns to be transferred to dangerous criminals. This happened in fast and furious. But sometimes to combat straw purchases the government has to o be given latitude to act on a tip and arrest a straw purchaser upon or immediately after a sale, but having said that, i well continue to Work Together prior to the time the bill comes to the floor. If there is no objection im prepared to accept your amendment. I offer the amendment. Since you said what you just said, im going to put my statement in the record. Let me say that im willing to consider reasonable changes to my amendment provided the changes dont harm the goals of holding the department of justice accountable for gun operations where veps could walk. Where weapons could walk. Fast and furious was a debacle that will haunt the department of justice for decades. These operations need oversight and accountability. And from that point on oversight and accountability, i think thats an area where i have to draw the line if youll take that into consideration. Without objection, the bill is amended by the amendment of the senator from iowa. Are there other amendments . Mr. Chairman. Senator cornyn. Mr. Chairman, i believe that stop illegal trafficking firearms act of 2013 which would create several new criminal penalties and amend statutory authorities to target weapons trafficking excuse me, if the senator would withhold just a second. Senator hatch has a statement he wants to include in the record. Without objection. Also, clarify the amendment we just accepted was senator grassley was alb13193. Yes. My concern is that this bill is a solution in search of a problem. Straw purchasing for purpose of directing guns to people who cannot legally attain them is already a crime. So we double down and say this time we really mean it. When in fact the real problem, i think, in many instances, is the lack of prosecution of existing crimes by the department of justice. As i have said earlier and ill say again, i have a hard time explaining to my constituents back home how passing more laws that will go unenforced make them any safer. While i understand the desire to act to seem like we are doing something, i worry about the disconnect between the action and any solution to the problems that we all are concerned about. I also worry, mr. Chairman, that this legislation which has been shared with my staff, i understand, about the last 36 hours, we havent had an adequate opportunity to try to vet it and understand what its ramifications might be, and my hope would be that there would be some additional time offered that we could try to work with your staff and work on a bipartisan basis to address the concerns we have. For example youre talking about the amendment that was introduced and circulated on monday . Today is thursday. My staff advises it was circulated yesterday. It was introduced on monday. My staff tells me we got it yesterday. The point is, let me just give you an example. For instance, the bill would make it a crime punishable by up to 20 years in prison for a person to attempt or plan to buy a firearm as a gift or raffle item. If the person neglectly fails to know that the recipient is prohibited from purchasing a firearm. In other words, this bill would make it a serious felony for an American Legion employee to neglectly transfer a raffled firearm to a veteran who unknown to the transferor suffers from ptsd. That example, and im sure there are others, causes me concern that we are getting ready to vote on a piece of legislation when we really dont know what the scope or the consequences of the legislation are. Which to me counsels taking our time and making sure we understand what the impact will be rather than passing legislation that will have unintended consequences that none of us would endorse, but which in our haste to try to do we are doing something, we end up creating that unintended consequence. Youre talking about your amendment atm13249, is that correct . Im talking about s54 stop illegal trafficking i understand. Are you introducing an amendment . I have not offered an amendment. If there are no amendments, then the clerk will call the roll on s54 as amended. I wanted to share something on that. Mr. Chairman, i do express concern about the penalties in this legislation is difficult to write. I know the chair has worked hard on it. I have some concerns about it. In general i support the concept of what youre doing. I think the department of justice has said there are areas in which they are not able to effectively enforce these laws. And they need better legislation. And im inclined to think that thats so. Although i would note to my colleagues that if you provide a gun to someone thats intending to use it in a drug crime or problemry or a murder, youre an or robbery or murder, youre an aider and abettor which makes you chargeable with a murder, or part of a conspiracy to do that and youre chargeable in that way. And thats the way its normally prosecuted today. So if you go into a gun dealer and certify and the 4473 form, i have prosecuted these cases, if you lie on that form, you are subject to a false statement and the penalties are in the code set forth. I suppose if the person leaves the country like in the situation we had at the border where these guns go into another country, its difficult. All you got left is a violation of the paperwork regulation. That may not be sufficient to properly punish a person. Or it may leave you fundamentally i think you have some valuable legislation here. But i am a bit troubled by the size of the penalty. I know the chair wants to be tough on this, but at the same time we want to be consistent with other penalties. Carrying a firearm during a drug offense is five years. If you brandish it and threaten somebody, its 10 years. Mandatory minimum. So youve got 15 years in this offense for providing a gun to somebody who may use it illegally, which would be im not sure that thats coherent with our are you saying im being too tough . Maybe. Really. Of course some of this will be decided by the sentencing guidelines. Most of the people i prosecuted back in vermont thought i was too tough, too. I have always been aggressive in prosecuting these cases. I would say to you i would just share my concern about that issue. Think we could fix it and probably solve some problems. Ok. The clerk will mr. Chairman, could i just ask one last question . Of course. Is it the intent of the authors of the bill to make it a crime punishable for up to 20 years for a person to attempt or plan to buy a firearm as a gift or raffle item the person neglectly fails to know the recipient is prohibited from purchasing a firearm . For example . No, we an American Legion employee we drafted it unknown to the transferor suffers from ptsd is that the intent of the authors of the legislation . No. That is the result of this legislation which i suggest is not we need to take our time to make sure we understand what we are doing here. And the problem is senator grassleys amendment was offered just a few moments ago, which you accepted, and i appreciate the fact that you all are able to Work Together so well, and this committee should be working together, but to jam through legislation that we dont know what the consequences are which would criminalize this American Legion employee i think is not our intention. But that is the result of the legislation of everyone who votes in favor of this bill as currently written. That cant be our purpose. And that is not the way the legislation is written. You and i have a different view of that, but its not the way the legislation is written. It is not the way the legislation is intended. Well have plenty of time before this matter comes on the floor. If you convince me that youre right and im wrong on this, ill be happy to consider an amendment, even further clarification, but we have been very careful to be sure we dont sweep in innocent transfers between private buyer of the nature you are talking about. The other senator from texas. Mr. Chairman, i wanted to thank the chairman for his good and hard work on this bill, and i think this bill has the potential for providing some real bipartisan agreement. I think from the beginning members of this committee on both sides of the aisle have agreed that efforts to focus on violent criminals should be the primary area of focus for preventing violent gun crime. I think this bill takes steps in that direction. I agree with the senior senator from texas that i have concerns that certain language, particularly the language in 932 could potentially sweep too broadly and could potentially sweep in innocent purchasers rather than those knowingly participating in Violent Crime and knowingly aiding those who would participate in Violent Crime from acquiring firearms. I do think there is potential. Before this bill is voted on in the floor of the senate to reach some bipartisan agreement that could end up having wide agreement. So i thank the chairman for that and i think language can be narrowed so we can be sure not to sweep in innocent conduct. I think we could find wide agreement in the underlying framework here. I come from the state where the kind of innocent purchase back and forth you talked about often happened. As you know im a gun owner. I spend a lot of time with my fellow gun owners, and one of i dont know if im the only person in this committee, but im probably one of the few who have a pistol range in my back beyond a reasonable doubt which backyard which i use except when we have two feet of snow. So ill be happy to sit down with you. Im wondering we have a lot ahead of us. If we have the clerk call the roll. Let me say one thing. 15 seconds. What the senator two senators from texas have brought up are concerns that i have had, and thats what i have been trying to work for. Obviously i havent satisfied these two senators, but i just want you to know those were the things that we have been trying to solve here and hopefully we have solved them. But ill have to try to convince you of that. But ill still work to help you get changes made if you think they ought to be made. Mr. Chairman senator sessions, you wish to be heard again . I believe the language you used is reasonable cause to believe that they might be unable to receive a firearm, which is pretty close to what senator cornyn says is negligence. So youve got some cause to believe your brotherinlaw may have had been convicted of a felony or may have dealing selling drugs. You brought him a gun and if he used the gun during a drug offense, he gets five years. But if you sell the gun to him you can get 15. My brotherinlaw is a well respected Catholic Priest and professor. Thats too broad a language and i hope to be able to support the legislation. We can talk about it. Thank you for allowing us to continue this negotiation. For today i would record a no vote. I have tried to follow existing law, the clerk will call the roll. Mrs. Feinstein. Aye. Mr. Schumer. Aye. Mr. Durbin. Aye. Mr. Whitehouse. Aye. Miss klobuchar. Aye. Mr. Franken. Aye. Mr. Graham. No by proxy. Mr. Cornyn. No. Mr. Lee. No by proxy. Mr. Chairman. Aye. Mr. Chairman votes are 11 yeas, seven nays. The senator from texas. So you dont think im trying to pull your leg, there was a complete substitute youre not the one that talked about my brotherinlaw. There was a complete substitute at your office at 4 16 yesterday. Is when we got the language. I was on the floor introducing it on monday. Im not saying you personally delivered it to our office. Im saying your shop emailed it to our office at 4 16 yesterday. Thats my only point. Thank you. All right. And trust me my brotherinlaws a good guy. I had the honor of meeting your brotherinlaw. I know you have. And hes done the prayer at the opening of the session several times. I must say just for it has nothing to do with this thing, but one of the things that hes found the biggest thrill when he has been the visiting clergyman for the senate is being able to spend the day on the floor. And so many senators, republicans and democrats alike, have come up to talk to him. I did point out that hes much nicer than his brotherinlaw, more like his sister. I yield to senator feinstein who has s150. Senator feinstein. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you very much, mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for allowing me to hold the hearing. I want to just report to you that we heard from one bereft and grieving father who lost a precious son at sandy hook. We heard from the trauma surgeon there who took care of their bodies and talked about what these weapons with the bullets do when they explode inside the body. We heard from the head of the United States conference of mayors, mayor nutter of baltimore excuse me of philadelphia who assured us of their support. We heard from chief flynn of baltimore who assured us of the support of the chiefs and talked about his city. I want to acknowledge the presence of Chief Johnson of the Baltimore CountyPolice Departments here. And we had a demonstration of a slide fire stock placed in an ar15, which was able to alternate the gun between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire, excuse me, chief flynn is from milwaukee. I have been very concerned because the calls have been coming in as if this is some kind of wildeyed scheme. It is not. Every single poll that has been done in the United States has shown that a majority of people favor this legislation. We have endorsements from virtually every religious organization, every medical organization, mayors, police, Womens Movement supporting this legislation. And yet its as if we have a minority unsubstantial piece of legislation. Whether its a Johns Hopkins poll, 69 , mayors against illegal guns at 81 . Its been a very hard road. Theres been argument by the opposition this measure is unconstitutional. I deeply believe that it is not unconstitutional. It is basically formed from the prior legislation. Legislation which survived testings tests in the fourth, in the sixth, in the ninth circuit and the d. C. Circuit. No assault weapons legislation statewide in this country ever has been found unconstitutional. And the heller decision clearly stated, and i quote, the rights secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited, end quote. And, quote, dangerous and unusual weapons, quote, could be prohibited. Since heller state assault weapons, as i said, have been upheld and no court that i am aware of has ever found an assault weapons ban to be unconstitutional. Over 50 distinguished constitutional law professors, including conservatives and libertarians from our nations leading law schools, including harvard, stanford, yale, and chicago signed a statement confirming that an assault weapons ban is constitutional. I particularly want to thank the cosponsors on this committee. I want to acknowledge the longstanding support of the man who presented the ban in the house of representatives over 10 years ago. The distinguished senator from new york. I want to point out that senator durbins support in the committee was really strong and appreciated. And i want to thank virtually all of the other cosponsors in this room. I want to just point out that i carefully watched senator blumenthal. I saw his care. I saw his and senator murphy, too, his representation of that deeply affected community in connecticut and i just want you to know i have