vote: the presiding officer: are there my senators wishing to change their vote? if not, on this vote, the nays s are 47, the nays are 52.

three-fifths of the senators not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. the point of order is sustained and the amendment falls. mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president, the senate is not in order. mr. president, i call up amendment 2912. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from texas, mr. cornyn, proposes an amendment numbered 2912 to amendment numbered 2874. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i'd ask further reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, this is an alternative to the feinstein amendment which we'll be voting on next. what this does is it preserves -- mr. reid: mr. president? mr. president in mr. president? we can't hear. please bring the senate to order. mr. cornyn: i thank the democratic leader. mr. president, this is an alternative to the feinstein amendment we will be voting on next. under the feinstein amendment, the government without due process can take away from you

valuable constitutional rights and they happen to be 2nd amendment rights without notice and the opportunity to be heard. so if you believe that the federal government is only omnit and all competent, vote for the feinstein amendment. but i would point out that even our former colleague, teddy kennedy, was on this terror watch list at one point. and despite numerous efforts to get off never could, as well as our friends katherine stevens, former ted stevens spouse. but my amendment would provide that due process, notice and opportunity to be heard and provide new tools and increased authorities to prevent terrorism and prevent violence by blocking the transfer of firearms following that notice and opportunity to be heard, which would also give the judicial authority an opportunity to grant an emergency terrorism order which would actually detain the person who is identified and proven to be a

terrorist. so i encourage my colleagues to support this amendment to give law enforcement the ability to take terrorists off the streets and prevent them from obtaining firearms while preserving important constitutional rights of law-abiding americans. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. reid: could we have order in the senate. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order, please. mr. reid: mr. president, i have great respect for the senior senator from texas. a former member of the texas supreme court. how he could make an argument like this is beyond my ability to comprehend. this republican amendment ties the hands of law enforcement. this amendment doesn't keep terrorists from getting guns. it simply delays their efforts for up to 72 hours. this amendment means that all a lawyer needs to do is come up with works for just a short time and an f.b.i. terrorist suspect

could walk away with a firearm, a legal firearm. and that would be relatively easy to do. there are a lot of lawyers in this chamber. courts can't do virtually anything in 72 hours. how long does it take to shoot up a school? a mall? someone's home? 15 minutes? five minutes? you could be on the terrorist watch list, go buy a gun and let the time go by. this is outrageous that people would try run from this amendment. if you're on on a terrorist watch list, you shouldn't be able to buy a gun. this would allow a terrorist to not only buy a gun but keep it for up to 72 hours. the second aspect of this amendment is equally alarming. it takes money away from law enforcement. here again we're voting on something again and again and again. we already voted down this

vitter amendment, sanctuary cities bill last month, which strips local law enforcement from vital federal community police grants. i'm going to use just a little bit of my leader time right now, mr. president. this strips law enforcement and vital community policing grants, targeted public safety and to build community trust. such community development block grants and -- and prohibits insurance of affordable housing. so very quickly, this amendment takes the f.b.i. out of the evasion when it comes to keeping guns away from terrorists and it takes away from local law enforcement agencies threatening public safety. is it any wonder that this is an antilaw enforcement amendment? the legislation's opposed by the fraternal order of police, major city chiefs association, the united states conference of mayors and many others. this is a dangerous amendment. we are trying to have somebody

stay off -- first of all, to use senator kennedy? let him object the watch list. he's not going to go buy a gun and hurt anybody. these ridiculous assertions are just that, ridiculous. this is -- we are trying to say that if you're on a watch list as being a terrorist, shouldn't be able to -- you shouldn't be able to buy a gun. it's as simple as that. and my friend, the senator from california won't lay this out, she's been a leader on guns in this chamber for two decades. mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the time for debate re -- no time for debate remains. mr. cornyn: i'd ask consent for 10 seconds. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, to accept the argument of the democratic leader, you'd have to believe that the federal government is always right and is all-knowing and can deprive you of valuable constitutional rights without giving you notice and an opportunity to be heard in front of an impartial tribunal, a judge.

so that's what the democratic leader is suggesting. i think it's just wrong. it's un-american. it violates the very core constitutional protections afforded to all americans and i would urge senators to vote for my alternative to the feinstein amendment and against the feinstein amendment, which would deprive people of their due process rights under the constitution. mr. reid: mr. president, there is nothing -- nothing -- unconstitutional about keeping a terrorist from buying a gun. that's what this is all about. do we want people on a terrorist watch list to go buy a gun? the answer is no. that's what this amendment's all about. and the senator from california will explain it. mr. reid: ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president, pursuant to -- [inaudible] i move to waive all applicable sections of that act and

applicable budget resolutions for purposes of amendment 2912 and ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

you. the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? seeing none, on this vote, the yeas are 55, the nays are 44. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn not vog voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. the point of order is sustained. the amendment fails. mr. inhofe: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: mr. president, continuing to march through the amendments, i ask unanimous consent that the next amendments in order be the following: grassley amendment number 2914,

manchin amendment number 2908. the presiding officer: is there objection? mrs. feinstein: my understanding -- mr. enzi: that would be the order following yours. mrs. feinstein: yes. mr. enzi: thank you. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: thank you etch have. i call up amendment 2910. officer the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from california, mrs. feinstein, proposes an amendment numbered 2910, to amendment number 2974. -- 2874. mrs. feinstein: mr. president, i rise to speak on an amendment which is identical to a bill i've introduced with republican congressman peter king. this amendment was proposed by the bush administration department of justice in 2007.

it would allow the attorney general to prevent a person from buying a gun or explosive if, one, the recipient is a known or suspected terrorist and, two, the attorney general has a reasonable belief that the recipient would use the firearm in connection with a terrorist act. the bill has very broad law enforcement support, including the major cities chiefs association and the international associatio associs of police. bill bratten who also was chief of police of the los angeles police department, recently said, "if congress really wants to do something, instead of just talking about something, help us out with that terrorist watch list where thousands of people can purchase a firearm and have in this country. many a more worried about them -- i'm more worried about them than i am about syrian refugees,

to be quite frank with you." the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mrs. feinstein: thank you very much, i yield the floor. mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president, if you believe that the federal government should be able to deprive an american citizen of one of their core constitutional rights without notice and an opportunity to be heard, then you should vote for the senator's amendment. this is not -- this is not the way we're supposed to do things in this country. if you think that the federal government never makes a mistake and that presumively the decisions the federal government makes about putting own a list because you're -- because of some suspicions, then you should vote for the senator's amendment. imu we all know better -- but we all know better than that. i used the example of teddy stevens and others who were placed on these lists. at the very least we ought to provide these individuals an opportunity for notice and a right to be heard by an impartial judicial tribunal to

make those decisions. so i would urge my colleagues to vote against the senator's amendment. one other reason: the whole purpose of this amendment is to destroy the privileged status of this reconciliation bill. if this bill passes, it will descrdestroy our ability to pass reconciliation bill with 515 votes. i urge my colleagues to vote against it. mr. enzi: the amendment calendar number 2910 offered by senator feinstein contains matter that is mott within the jurisdiction of the finance committee or the help committee and is extraneous to h.r. 3762, the reconciliation bill. therefore, i raise a point of order against the measure pursuant to section 313-b-1-c. congressional budget act of 1974. mrs. feinstein: mr. president, pursuant to section 904 of the congressional budget act of 1974, i move to waive all applicable sections of that act for the purpose of the pending amendment and i ask for the yeas and nays.

the presiding officer: is there is sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote:

vote: the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber who wish to vote or change their vote? seeing none, the yeas are 45, nays 54. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. the point of order is sustained. the amendment fails. mr. enzi: mr. president? the presiding officer: the

senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: mr. president, after we finish the grassley amendment and the manchin amendment, then i ask unanimous consent that the next amendments in order be the following -- bennet number 2907 and paul number 2899. the presiding officer: is there objection? seeing none, so ordered. mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i want to call up grassley amendment numbered 2914. the presiding officer: the dlerk will -- clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nebraska, mr. grassley, propose- mr. grassley: that's enough reading. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: now, you're going to be voting on the manchin-toomey amendment pretty soon. that amendment won't prevent -- the presiding officer: the senator will suspend. order, please. take your conversations off the floor. mr. grassley: i assume my minute starts over. the manchin-toomey amendment

that's going to be up next, i'm told, won't prevent the next shooting or reduce crime or fix our mental health system. we need to also be worried about protecting the second amendment. my amendment addresses the obama administration's reduction in gun prosecutions by providing money to expand project exile and funding for prosecuting felons and fugitives who fail background checks and targeted -- then we target that to the highest crime jurisdictions. it criminalizes straw purchasing and gun trafficking, more resources for secure our school grants. it increases funding for mental health initiatives. it incentivizes states to provide mental health records to the database. it clarifies which records should be submitted to the n.i.c. system. it provides military members -- it provides that military members can buy firearms in

their state so things that happen at chattanooga doesn't happen. and finally, this amendment also reduces funding for sanctuary cities. i ask the adoption of the amendment. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, the victims of gun violence and their families deserve more than a moment of silence. they deserve a moment of sanity. we have coming before us a proposal by a republican and a democratic senator, toomey and manchin proposal. to close the loopholes so that people who are convicted felons and people who are mentally unstable cannot buy firearms. unfortunately, in the 100-page amendment being offered by the senator from iowa, exactly the opposite occurs. the loopholes are open. and when it comes to background checks, unfortunately, this doesn't do anything. it does do one thing. i forget. it reduces the amount of money available to police departments

and cop grants all across the united states if the senate disagrees with their immigration policy. that's why the fraternal order of police oppose it. let's have a moment of sanity. let's support manchin-toomey. please vote no on grassley. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i raise a point of order the pending amendment violates chan 313-1-b-sea of the congressional budget office of 1974. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: pursuant to the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolution, i move to waive all applicable sections of that act and applicable budget resolutions for the purpose of this amendment 2914 and ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote: