Democrats’ Filibuster Blocked Important Funding

U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was less than pleased with Democrats’ filibuster launched Wednesday during debate over the Commerce, Justice, and State Appropriations Act.

That’s not so much because they were pushing for gun control, but because they were blocking a bill that was meant to provide more resources for law enforcement to prevent future attacks like the one perpetrated in Orlando, Florida, last weekend. The senator decided perhaps voters in a crucial election year should be reminded and issued a statement Wednesday evening:

Last weekend, terrorism once again hit our homeland. We pray for the families of those who were killed and injured in Orlando. 

It was an awful reminder that there are terrorists both here and abroad who want to destroy America and kill Americans. We’re seeing our way of life and freedoms that make this country special come under attack by radical Islamic terrorism.

People are scared. People are anxious. And rightly so. This is a radical ideology that so hates democracy and freedom, that they will stop short of nothing to try to destroy it. But we can’t be paralyzed by our anxiety.

We have to fight back. We will fight back.

We need to make sure our law enforcement, military and intelligence communities have the tools to identify and apprehend terrorists before they commit their heinous acts. We must help by keeping our own eyes and ears open and reporting questionable activity to the authorities. 

This fight is about freedom. It’s not about guns. 

People are understandably looking for answers. But the terrorist attacks in France have proven that even the toughest gun laws don’t stop terrorists.

There isn’t one legislative proposal out there that would have stopped this killer from getting a gun. The Feinstein proposal relies on a government list known for inaccuracies. The no-fly list relies on unilateral decisions by the executive branch to put people on the list without notice or opportunity to be heard. It alone is not an acceptable basis on which to infringe on someone’s Second Amendment rights.

Unfortunately, there isn’t an easy solution. I wish there were. 

We’re working on some ideas and have been addressing national security issues over the past year.

I’ve brought the FBI director and the assistant attorney general before the Judiciary Committee to discuss encryption technology. We’ve also held a hearing in the committee on the renewal of the FISA authority that permits foreigners overseas to be targeted for electronic surveillance with the assistance of U.S. technology companies. I’ve sent a letter to the Departments of State and Homeland Security to learn more about what the killer, his family, his work and travel history, and previous contacts with the FBI. 

But we need to keep our eye on the ball. 

This fight is about our freedoms and ridding the world of an ideology of hate.

Grassley also noted there is broad agreement that terrorists should be prevented from having access to firearms. Following the San Bernardino attack, he said there was an “alternative” to the Democrats’ plan that would have done that while also “protecting Americans’ constitutional rights.”

The Democrat proposal, he said, relies on a “list known for inaccuracies unilaterally decided on by the Executive Branch without notice or opportunity to be heard.” And, he added, FBI Director James Comey has told lawmakers their proposal could harm domestic terror investigations.

“What we do now is if someone on the watch list purchases or attempts to purchase a firearm, an immediate alert is sent to the agents who are the source of the suspicion about that individual, so they can incorporate that information into their investigation,” Comey told Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.), the author of the Democratic proposal, during a hearing on the issue in March of 2015. “It’s a little bit challenging for us because known or suspected means it hasn’t been adjudicated in every case that somebody is a terrorist. It’s somebody we’re investigating, so we don’t want to, obviously, blow our investigation.”