Prepared Floor Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee
Clarifying Certain Myths Regarding the Gun Control Debate and Discussion of Proposed Legislation
Wednesday, February 3, 2016
Mr. President, the problem of gun violence is real, but too many of the proposed responses to this problem would not only represent unwise policy, but would also violate a fundamental constitutional right: the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
What does this mean to you and me as Americans?
It means that the right to bear arms falls into the same category as our other most closely held individual rights: the right to free speech, the right to freedom of religion, and the right to due process under the law.
It should be emphasized that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is an individual, fundamental constitutional right. With that firm foundation, I want to straighten out some rampant misinformation that is used to advocate for stricter gun control.
Correcting these myths is essential so that the issue can be properly deliberated and addressed. Unfortunately, many of these myths were reiterated over the past two weeks during primetime, nationwide presidential media appearances.
First, let’s debunk the quote “Gun Show Loophole.” Were you to click on your TV, pick up a newspaper, or read certain mailers, you would be left with the impression that if you buy a firearm at a gun show you are not subject to a background check.
In fact, all gun show purchases made from commercial gun dealers require a background check. These commercial gun dealers, or federal firearms licensees as the law refers to them, typically make up the majority of the gun vendors at gun shows. So, let’s be clear, if someone goes to a gun show and purchases a firearm from a commercial gun dealer, they are subject to a background check, period.
So then, who are these people who are not subject to a background check? If you are an individual and you want to sell your gun to another individual, you may do so, assuming you don’t know or have reasonable cause to believe that such person is prohibited from owning a gun. The government does not dictate where this sale takes place. You can sell your hunting rifle to your neighbor’s daughter and you can make that sale in your home, driveway, or a parking lot. You can also make this sale to another individual at a gun show. This is what is referred to as a peer-to-peer transaction; two adults engaged in a personal transaction.
Just as there is no background check required in your driveway, there generally is no background check required when that private, peer-to-peer sale happens to occur at a gun show. This is not a loophole in the pejorative sense of the word, this is an American lawfully selling their property to another without federal government involvement.
In this same vein, to hear the President discuss it, you would assume that these gun shows were lawless free-for-alls for felons to obtain their newest illegal weapon. In fact, local, state, and federal law enforcement are often present at gun shows, both in uniform and covertly in plain clothes. They monitor and intervene in suspected unlawful firearms sales such as straw purchasing, attempted purchases by prohibited individuals, and the attempted sale of illegal firearms.
As the Washington Times reported recently, law enforcement arrests at gun shows hit new highs last year. I recently attended a gun show in Iowa and there was a robust law enforcement presence.
Next, we have repeatedly been told by President Obama, as recently as a couple of weeks ago, that firearms purchased on the Internet don’t require a background check. I have seen media reports to the same effect. Once again, this is a blatant inaccuracy that needs correcting.
An individual cannot purchase a firearm directly over the Internet.
A gun purchaser can pay for a firearm over the Internet, but, if purchased from a firearms retailer, the firearm must then be sent to a brick and mortar location. When the purchaser picks up the gun, a background check is performed, and, assuming the purchaser passes the background check, he or she may obtain physical possession of the firearm.
In addition, an individual cannot lawfully purchase a firearm on the Internet from an individual who is in another state. Any inter-state sale of a firearm, even between two individuals online, must go through a gun store, who, after charging a fee, and running a background check on the purchaser, provides the purchaser with the firearm they bought from another individual on the Internet.
These are two clear instances where internet purchases require a background check. The one exception where a firearm can be lawfully purchased using the Internet, without a background check, is when two individuals, from the same state, establish the terms of a purchase over the Internet, but then meet in person to transfer the firearm. If the firearm is a rifle or a shotgun, a resident may use the U.S. Postal Service to mail a firearm, INTRA-state to another individual, but he may not do so if the item being purchased is a handgun. A handgun can only be mailed intra-state via a contract carrier.
As you can see, once you blow away the smoke and pull down the mirrors, the statement that there are no background checks on Internet purchases rings hollow.
Third, with great fanfare, President Obama has stated unequivocally that firearms enforcement has been a priority for his administration. This simply is not true either. The Obama administration chose to focus its criminal justice resources elsewhere. Federal firearms prosecutions are down at least 25 percent under this President. In addition, he suspended successful programs specifically designed to thwart firearms offenses.
Unfortunately, as has so often been the case with the Obama Administration, the rhetoric just does not match the action. As I have repeatedly called for, we need greater enforcement of the existing law, which simply has not happened under this administration.
Fourth, despite condemnation from both sides of the aisle and even from publications that regularly support increased gun control, like the LA Times, we have once again heard the President call for tying Americans’ fundamental Second Amendment right to the terrorist no-fly list.
As we now know, the no-fly list is actually multiple lists, generated in secret and controlled by executive branch bureaucrats. It is intended to thwart suspected terrorists from flying. Flying is not a constitutional right like the Second Amendment is. So, the people who are put on these lists are not given a chance to challenge their inclusion.
However, it is blatantly unconstitutional to deny a fundamental constitutional right without any type of due process such as notice and an opportunity to be heard.
The fact that the President continues to call for use of the no-fly list as it relates to a fundamental right calls into question his repeated assurances that he fully supports the Second Amendment. Given unprecedented executive actions regarding sanctuary cities and a refusal to enforce immigration laws as enacted by this body, we should not be surprised. But let me state unequivocally: using a secret document, which by its nature and purpose, will often be over inclusive or contain errors as a basis for denying Americans their Second Amendment right is clearly unconstitutional.
Fifth, on multiple occasions the Obama Administration has condemned semi-automatic weapons. Let’s get this straight right here and right now. As any gun owner knows, a semi-automatic firearm is simply a gun that shoots one round with each pull of the trigger. This encompasses the type of shotgun most often used for duck hunting and the type of rifle often used for target shooting. A semi-automatic firearm does not equate to the fabled assault weapon and is not a machine gun. We should be concerned when this Administration makes proposals on guns that fail to reflect knowledge of even elementary elements of their operation.
I have additional myths that need to be dispelled that I will submit and ask that they be made part of the record, but being mindful of my time, I now want to respond directly to one of President Obama’s challenges.
Let’s talk for a moment about bipartisan efforts regarding gun control.
Senator Durbin and I are working on a bill, which we will introduce shortly, that prohibits all aliens, with the exception of legal permanent residents, and those who fall under a sporting exception, from acquiring firearms. In addition, our bill re-institutes residency requirements for those non-citizens attempting to purchase a firearm. This bipartisan legislation closes actual loopholes, such as those that currently permit refugees or asylees, or those from visa waiver countries, to acquire firearms.
I look forward to the opportunity to work on this issue in a bipartisan manner, but if we are going to deliberate and debate the issue, we must clear up the misconceptions and avoid erroneous rhetoric.
I will end where I started. The Second Amendment right to bear arms is a fundamental right and any legislative or executive action must start and finish with recognition of this fact.
I yield the floor.
-30-Remarks of Sen. Chuck Grassley
Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America Visit to Capitol Hill
Wednesday, Feb. 3, 2016
Thank you, General Dean, for your kind introduction and for inviting me back to speak with all of you again.
It’s always a pleasure to have a chance to speak with passionate and dedicated people.
I want to extend a warm welcome to all of you to our nation’s capital.
I especially want to welcome those from my home state of Iowa, whom I look forward to meeting with shortly.
Drug abuse and addiction continue to plague families and communities throughout the country.
However, we don’t accept this as a routine part of our society.
We’re dedicated to preventing drug abuse and addiction even before they begin.
As Chairman of both the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Drug Caucus, I’m committed to finding bipartisan solutions to prevent and combat drug abuse and addiction.
Just last week, I chaired a hearing in the Judiciary Committee about the epidemic of abuse of prescription drugs and heroin gripping the country.
The committee heard from experts, both inside and outside of government, about ways to stem this growing epidemic.
And we heard moving testimony from a mother who lost her daughter to a heroin overdose.
We also heard from multiple experts about the need to continue education and raise awareness to prevent medicines from falling into the wrong hands.
Drug Free Community coalitions will be crucial in continuing their good work to help spread this message throughout communities to prevent more tragedies from occurring.
I look forward to working with the members of the Judiciary Committee to advance positive solutions to prevent and reduce prescription drug and heroin abuse.
And I’m hopeful that the Judiciary Committee will soon consider the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2015.
This legislation is a multi-faceted approach to fighting the abuse of heroin and other opioids in this country.
It also supports past and existing Drug-Free Community grantees by allowing them to apply for additional grants if their communities are experiencing unique drug crises.
Of course, the danger posed by other drugs remains ever-present.
Last October, I convened a Judiciary Committee field hearing in Iowa to examine the changing nature of threat posed by methamphetamine there.
Today, law enforcement’s seizure of meth labs is at almost a 20-year low in Iowa, but unfortunately, many of the leading indicators of heroin addiction are up. Why? Meth is being trafficked into the state by Mexican drug trafficking organizations.
I’ll continue to press the Administration to secure the border from the cartels.
I’m also dedicated to finding ways to halt the growing trend of synthetic drug abuse.
Synthetic drugs with street names like bath salts, K2, or molly have had a devastating impact on families throughout the country.
I’m working to find solutions that will make the manufacturers and sellers of these drugs think twice before making these drugs available for sale in our communities.
I also continue to be concerned about the effect that the legalization of recreational marijuana at the state level is having on our youth.
Just this week, the Government Accountability Office issued a report, at my request, which highlights the fact that the Obama Administration doesn’t have a documented plan in place to monitor the effects of state legalization of marijuana on its eight federal marijuana enforcement priorities.
Chief among these eight enforcement priorities are preventing the distribution of marijuana to minors and preventing the diversion of marijuana across state lines.
I plan to hold a hearing soon in the Senate Drug Caucus to hold the Department of Justice’s feet to the fire to enforce federal law when it comes to marijuana.
All the while, I continue to be amazed by the good work community coalitions throughout Iowa and the nation do to make their communities safer and healthier.
Your work is having an effect. We can see from surveys, like the Monitoring the Future Survey, show general downward trends in most drug abuse categories for youth.
But of course the work to prevent drug abuse must continue.
Now more than ever, we must fight the negative messages youth encounter in today’s culture.
That is why I continue to support the Drug Free Communities grant program and will work to ensure it continues to receive the funding it needs.
Though the Drug Free Communities program supports community anti-drug efforts, it’s all of you in this room and throughout the country who selflessly work toward the noble cause of safe and drug free communities that make the real difference. Thank you for all that you do.
-30-
Remarks of Sen. Chuck Grassley
National Rural Health Association
Wednesday, February 3, 2016
I want to thank you, the National Rural Health Association, for inviting me to speak with you.
Hospital closures and payment issues impact Iowans and the nation at large.
As a senator from a rural state, I have been a long-time advocate of rural hospitals.
These hospitals provide needed care close to home.
A tractor accident is dangerous under the best of circumstances.
But it can be fatal for someone who’s far away from an emergency room.
Following a traumatic injury, patients have a small window of time to reach services before they are in trouble.
The distance to an emergency room often means the difference between life and death.
Emergency room professionals use the term “Golden Hour.”
Rural communities deserve access to that Golden Hour of emergency care.
In the past five years, 65 rural hospitals have closed their doors.
Last year, 17 rural hospitals closed.
Those hospitals that haven’t closed are struggling to keep the doors open.
When a rural hospital closes, its emergency room closes with it.
When emergency rooms close, patients must travel longer distances to receive life-saving care.
This wastes precious minutes of that Golden Hour.
These closures are creating a health care crisis for hundreds of thousands of Americans across the country.
Take, for example, Portia Gibbs from North Carolina.
At 48, Portia suffered a heart attack 75 miles away from the nearest emergency room.
She later died while waiting for a helicopter to make it to Virginia where the closest hospital was located.
If Portia’s heart attack had occurred just one week earlier, Portia would have been transported to a hospital in Belhaven, North Carolina, just 30 miles away.
Unfortunately, the facility in Belhaven had closed just six days before Portia’s heart attack because of financial struggles.
But rural hospital closures extend beyond the loss of emergency services.
There are economic consequences for these communities when the local hospital closes.
If we care about rural communities, as I do, we must change this trend of closing rural hospitals.
One area where we can change this trend is to improve the way rural hospitals are compensated for the lifesaving care they provide.
Today, the Medicare payment structure for hospitals is focused on inpatient volume.
This must change.
Researchers at the University of North Carolina found many of the at-risk rural hospitals around the country have an average of two or fewer inpatients on any given day.
In a Critical Access Hospital with 25 beds and only 2 inpatients per day, that is an 8% utilization rate.
It doesn’t take an economist to figure out that is not sustainable.
Instead of letting these facilities close, why not let go of the under-utilized inpatient services.
So, along with Senators Gardner and Lankford I have introduced S 1648, the Rural Emergency Acute Care Hospital Act, also called the REACH Act.
I understand that Senator Lankford mentioned this yesterday.
The topic is so important, it deserves two speeches.
The REACH Act will provide a voluntary path forward for rural hospitals to eliminate their underutilized inpatient services and ensure patients access to emergency medical care.
The REACH Act will create a new Rural Emergency Hospital classification under Medicare.
A qualifying hospital will have an emergency room and outpatient services.
It would not have the inpatient bed requirement that so many hospitals are struggling with.
This legislation will not force any new requirements on hospitals.
It will simply offer them a new option.
With this new designation, these facilities will have protocols in place to transfer patients who require a higher level of care.
The value of the Rural Emergency Hospitals is their ability stabilize a patient before they are transferred to a higher level of care.
In addition to providing life-saving emergency care, Rural Emergency Hospitals will have the flexibility to provide a wide array of outpatient services.
These services can include observation care, skilled nursing facility care, infusion services, dialysis, home health, hospice, nursing home care, population health, as well as telemedicine services.
This is not all inclusive, but just a sample of the outpatient services that could be provided.
The door is left open for Rural Emergency Hospitals to design their outpatient services to match the needs of their communities.
The REACH Act is one part of the solution to stop rural hospital closures.
We have a lot of work to do, but we can also celebrate some wins.
My legislation, S. 332, the Rural Hospital Access Act, made the Medicare-dependent hospital and the Medicare low-volume hospital programs permanent.
This was signed into law early last year.
Now those hospitals have some predictability so that they can plan for the future.
S. 607, the Rural Community Hospital Demonstration Extension Act, is another one of my bills.
It was recently passed in the Senate.
Everyone agrees it should be done.
This legislation provides cost-based payments for eligible hospitals within some of the 20 most sparsely populated states.
Currently, there are 23 hospitals participating in this program, and we want them to continue to keep their doors open.
I think we all agree it is better to keep 23 rural hospitals open rather than close 23 rural hospitals.
Now comes your part.
We need grass roots efforts to weigh in with the House of Representatives, particularly the Ways and Means Committee.
We need them to move S. 607 quickly to the President’s desk.
-30-
