[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 9 (Thursday, January 24, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S286-S291]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mrs. MURRAY (for herself, Mr. Begich, and Mr. Tester):
  S. 131. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the 
reproductive assistance provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs 
to severely wounded, ill, or injured veterans and their spouses, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I introduce the Women Veterans and 
Other Health Care Improvement Act of 2013. I am incredibly proud of the 
women and men who have served or are serving our Nation in uniform, and 
I am grateful for the sacrifices they make on our behalf. That is why 
we must do everything in our power to meet the needs of our veterans 
and servicemembers. As those needs change, we must ensure the care 
available keeps pace.
  That is why I introduced legislation, which was signed into law as 
part of the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 
2010, which helped to transform the way that the Department of Veterans 
Affairs addresses the needs of women veterans. Among other things, that 
law required the VA to provide neonatal care, train mental health 
professionals to provide mental health services for sexual trauma, and 
develop a child care pilot program. VA has an obligation to provide 
veterans with quality care and it is our responsibility to make sure 
that VA does so. The legislation I am introducing today builds upon 
that effort to make additional improvements to VA's services for women 
veterans and veterans with families.
  The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been characterized by 
increasing use of improvised explosive devices that leave 
servicemembers, both male and female, at increased risk for blast 
injuries including spinal cord injury and trauma to the reproductive 
and urinary systems. Defense Department data show that between 2003 and 
2012 nearly 2,000 women and men suffered these types of injuries while 
serving in Iraq or Afghanistan.
  These devastating and life-changing wounds can destroy the vision 
these men and women, and their spouses, had for the future. Having a 
family is one of the cornerstones of life that so many people look 
forward to and see as a fundamental part of their lives. To have dreams 
shattered because you were brave enough to put yourself in harm's way 
for your country is something we can never fully repay. But we must do 
everything we can.
  As our warriors return from the battlefield, the VA system must be 
equipped to help injured veterans step back into their lives as 
parents, spouses, and citizens. These veterans have served honorably 
and have made the ultimate sacrifice for our great Nation. They deserve 
the opportunity to pursue their goals and dreams, whether that includes 
pursuing higher education, finding gainful employment, purchasing their 
first house, or starting their own family. VA has many programs that 
help veterans pursue the educational, career, or homeownership dreams 
and goals that they deferred in service to this country, but it falls 
short when it comes to helping severely wounded veterans who want to 
start a family. These veterans often need far more advanced services in 
order to conceive a child.
  The Department of Defense and the Tricare program are already able to 
provide advanced fertility treatments, including assisted reproductive 
technology, to servicemembers with complex injuries. However, not all 
injured servicemembers are prepared to have a child at the time they 
are eligible for that coverage, and some are no longer eligible for 
Tricare by the time they are ready.
  VA's fertility counseling and treatment options are limited and do 
not meet the complex needs of severely injured veterans. I have heard 
from seriously wounded veterans whose injuries have made it impossible 
for them to conceive children naturally. While the details of these 
stories vary, the common thread that runs through them all is that 
these veterans were unable to obtain the type of assistance they need. 
Some have spent tens of thousands of dollars on advanced reproductive 
treatments in the private sector to get what they need to start a 
family. Others have watched their marriage collapse because the stress 
of infertility, in combination with the stresses of readjusting to life 
after severe injury, drove their relationship to a breaking point. Any 
servicemember who sustains this type of serious injury deserves much 
better. It is our responsibility to give VA the tools it needs to serve 
them, and the Women Veterans and Other Health Care Improvement Act is a 
start at doing that.
  This legislation also requires VA to build upon existing research 
framework to gain a better understanding of the long-term reproductive 
health care needs of veterans, from those who experience severe 
reproductive and urinary tract trauma to those who experience gender-
specific infections in the battlefield. An Army task force charged with 
looking at the needs of female servicemembers reported that women in 
the battlefield experience higher rates of urinary tract infections and 
other women's health difficulties.
  After a decade at war, many women servicemembers are still at 
increased risk for women's health problems due to deployment conditions 
and a lack of predeployment women's health information, compounded by 
privacy and safety concerns. Little is known about the impact that 
these issues and injuries have on the long-term health care needs of 
veterans. Additional research will provide critical information to help 
VA improve services for veterans.
  Caring for children is another frequent problem veterans encounter 
when trying to get health care. To address this, my legislation 
provides permanent authority for VA to provide child care to veterans 
going to medical centers or Vet Centers for health care. A pilot 
program examining these services is nearing completion and the results 
have been overwhelmingly positive. Those pilots have been very popular 
with veterans and VA employees, and have been far less expensive than 
originally estimated.
  This legislation is also fully paid for. VA would be empowered to ask 
contractors and large corporations to pay a relatively small fee in 
order to provide the care needed by some of our most seriously wounded 
veterans. This would not hurt small businesses or veteran owned small 
businesses, because the Secretary would be given the authority to 
exempt those small businesses to ensure their ability to compete is not 
jeopardized.
  Finally, I would point out that last Congress, in fact just a little 
more than a month ago, these provisions were unanimously approved by 
the Senate. I think the other Members of this body realized then that 
we must meet the changing needs of all our servicemembers and veterans, 
and that regardless of gender we must fulfill our obligation to do 
everything we can to make whole those who have been injured in service 
to this country.

[[Page S287]]

  I hope all of my colleagues will again support this legislation so we 
can provide care to meet these most serious needs.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CARPER (for himself, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Murray, and Mrs. 
        Boxer):
  S. 132. A bill to provide for the admission of the State of New 
Columbia into the Union; to the Committee on Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the New Columbia 
Admissions Act, a bill that seeks to end a longstanding injustice and 
give full voting representation to the residents of the District of 
Columbia. More than 600,000 Americans live in Washington, D.C. and bear 
all the responsibilities of citizenship, yet currently have no vote in 
either chamber of Congress. This legislation paves the way for the 
creation of a 51st state from the populated portions of Washington, 
D.C., giving the citizens who live here in our nation's capital the 
voice they deserve in our national government.
  Washington is not just a collection of government offices, monuments 
and museums; it is home to more than half a million people who work, 
study, raise families, and start businesses. These citizens serve in 
the military and die for our country just like the residents of the 50 
States. They pay Federal taxes just like other Americans in fact they 
pay more per capita than residents of most states. But when it comes to 
having a voice in our Congress, suddenly these citizens do not count.
  We must ask ourselves how we would feel in their place; I think most 
of us would quickly decide that this is not how we would want to be 
treated. In fact, the United States is the only democracy in the world 
that treats the citizens of its capital city this way. We are the only 
democracy, it is sad to say, that denies voting representation to the 
people who live in its capital city.
  People have been trying to fix this injustice for almost as long as 
it has existed. In 1801, just one year after residents of the new 
Federal capital city were denied the vote, a prominent city resident 
began arguing for a constitutional amendment to give voting rights to 
residents of the District. Two years later, a House member introduced a 
bill to ``retrocede,'' or give back to Maryland and Virginia, the land 
that was ceded to create the District. Support for the proposal was 
based in large part on the political injustice of denying 
representation to the residents of the capital city. Even some 
opponents reportedly argued that the District might be granted 
Congressional representation once its population became more 
substantial, a threshold that clearly seems to have been met by a city 
of more than half a million people, a number comparable to several 
states. In 1978, the House and Senate approved a constitutional 
amendment to give the District full voting representation in Congress 
that was ratified by 16 states, but the measure died when it failed to 
win support from the required \3/4\ of the States within 7 years. More 
recently, in 2009, the Senate approved a bill to give the District a 
voting representative in the House.
  The bill I am introducing today creates a path for the District of 
Columbia to become the State of ``New Columbia'' with full voting 
rights in Congress. Under this bill, a federal district called 
Washington, D.C. would still remain under the control of Congress, as 
the Constitution mandates. But it would be a smaller area encompassing 
the White House, the Capitol, the Supreme Court and the National Mall, 
an area where few people actually live. The rest of the current 
District of Columbia, diverse neighborhoods that are home to more than 
half a million U.S. citizens no different from the ones you and I and 
our colleagues come here to represent would become a new State provided 
that its residents vote to set that in motion.
  The bill is similar to proposals offered by Senator Edward Kennedy in 
the early 1990s, and by my former colleague Senator Joseph Lieberman in 
December 2012. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District's sole, 
non-voting representative in the House who has worked tirelessly for 
voting rights for the residents of the city, has introduced a companion 
House bill.
  I believe we keep proposing and debating different solutions to the 
injustice imposed on District residents because we know in our hearts 
that the situation we have now and have tolerated for so long is not 
right. It is familiar, but it is not fair and not consistent with the 
values we all share as Americans. It is incumbent upon those of us who 
enjoy the right and the privilege of full voting rights to take up the 
cause of our fellow citizens here in the District of Columbia and find 
a solution.
  Earlier this week, we celebrated the birth of Martin Luther King, Jr. 
and his legacy of working to bring equality and justice to all 
Americans. It is in that spirit that I introduce this bill, with my 
colleagues Senators Barbara Boxer, Richard Durbin and Patty Murray. I 
hope we can work together to find a way to bring the same rights to the 
residents of the District of Columbia that all of us living in the 50 
states cherish so much.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Coburn, Mr. 
        Johanns, and Mr. Heller):
  S. 134. A bill to arrange for the National Academy of Sciences to 
study the impact of violent video games and violent video programming 
on children; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I still well up with deep emotion 
when I see Newtown parents remembering their lost children, recalling 
what they wore to school that day or their last sweet words before 
boarding the school bus. The memory of that horrifying day, and of 
those children and their teachers, has not waned, nor should it ever. 
It should be an enduring call to action to do everything we can to save 
innocent lives.
  That is why I have championed a comprehensive approach to combating 
gun violence, and support the President's plan to protect the Nation's 
citizens. West Virginians have a proud tradition of hunting and 
understand the importance of the Second Amendment. I know we can 
protect those traditions and rights as we look at ways to prevent 
senseless acts of violence.
  One piece of this comprehensive examination concerns violent content, 
including video games and video programming. I have long had concerns 
about how the violent content that kids see and interact with every day 
affects their wellbeing. This is a very important issue, and one that 
deserves further research, as even the President recognized. That is 
why, as Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, I am introducing 
today the Violent Content Research Act of 2013. Under this legislation, 
the National Academy of Sciences would conduct a comprehensive study on 
the connection between exposure to violent video games and video 
programming and harmful effects on children.
  Recent court decisions demonstrate that some people still do not get 
it. They believe that violent video games are no more dangerous to 
young minds than classic literature or Saturday morning cartoons. 
Parents, pediatricians, and psychologists know better.
  These court decisions show we need to conduct additional groundwork 
on this issue. This report would be a critical resource in this 
process. It could inform research by other organizations, including the 
Centers for Disease Control, and provide guidance to lawmakers. I call 
on my colleagues to join me in passing this important legislation 
quickly.
  Separately, I will be calling on the Federal Trade Commission and the 
Federal Communications Commission to expand their work in this area. 
The FTC has reviewed the effectiveness of the video game ratings 
system. The FCC has looked at the impact of violent programming on 
children. Changes in technology now allow kids to access violent 
content on-line and increasingly from mobile platforms with less 
parental involvement. It is time for these two agencies to take a fresh 
look at these issues.
  Major corporations, including the video game industry, make billions 
on marketing and selling violent content to children. They have a 
responsibility to protect our children. If they do not, you can count 
on the Congress to take a more aggressive role.

[[Page S288]]

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 134

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Violent Content Research Act 
     of 2013''.

     SEC. 2. STUDY; NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Federal Trade Commission, the 
     Federal Communications Commission, and the Department of 
     Health and Human Services, jointly, shall undertake to enter 
     into appropriate arrangements with the National Academy of 
     Sciences to conduct a comprehensive study and investigation 
     of--
       (1) whether there is a connection between exposure to 
     violent video games and harmful effects on children; and
       (2) whether there is a connection between exposure to 
     violent video programming and harmful effects on children.
       (b) Contents of Study and Investigation.--
       (1) Violent video games.--The study and investigation under 
     subsection (a) shall include--
       (A) whether the exposure listed under subsection (a)(1)--
       (i) causes children to act aggressively or causes other 
     measurable harm to children;
       (ii) has a disproportionately harmful effect on children 
     already prone to aggressive behavior or on other identifiable 
     groups of children; and
       (iii) has a harmful effect that is distinguishable from any 
     negative effects produced by other types of media;
       (B) whether any harm identified under subparagraph (A)(i) 
     has a direct and long-lasting impact on a child's well-being; 
     and
       (C) whether current or emerging characteristics of video 
     games have a unique impact on children, considering in 
     particular video games' interactive nature and the 
     extraordinarily personal and vivid way violence might be 
     portrayed in such video games.
       (2) Violent video programming.--The study and investigation 
     under subsection (a) shall include--
       (A) whether the exposure listed under subsection (a)(2)--
       (i) causes children to act aggressively or causes other 
     measurable harm to children;
       (ii) has a disproportionately harmful effect on children 
     already prone to aggressive behavior or on other identifiable 
     groups of children; and
       (iii) has a harmful effect that is distinguishable from any 
     negative effects produced by other types of media; and
       (B) whether any harm identified under subparagraph (A)(i) 
     has a direct and long-lasting impact on a child's well-being.
       (3) Future research.--The study and investigation under 
     subsection (a) shall identify gaps in the current state of 
     research which, if closed, could provide additional 
     information regarding any causal connection--
       (A) between exposure to violent video games and behavior; 
     and
       (B) between exposure to violent video programming and 
     behavior.
       (c) Report.--In entering into any arrangements with the 
     National Academy of Sciences for conducting the study and 
     investigation under this section, the Federal Trade 
     Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, and the 
     Department of Health and Human Services shall request the 
     National Academy of Sciences to submit, not later than 15 
     months after the date on which such arrangements are 
     completed, a report on the results of the study and 
     investigation to--
       (1) Congress;
       (2) the Federal Trade Commission;
       (3) the Federal Communications Commission; and
       (4) the Department of Health and Human Services.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Ms. Stabenow, and Mr. Blunt):
  S. 141. A bill to make supplemental agricultural disaster assistance 
available for fiscal years 2012 and 2013, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, last year the U.S. experienced the most 
severe and extensive drought in at least 25 years.
  While the impacts of the drought affected both crop and livestock 
sectors, our commodity farmers have had some protection under crop 
insurance. With the House not passing a 5 year reauthorization of the 
Farm Bill last year, we have left one sector of agriculture to fend for 
themselves.
  Our ranchers across the country and in my home State of Montana have 
experienced the most extensive drought since the 1950. About 80 percent 
of agricultural land experienced drought in 2012.
  As last year came and went, a drought stretched across the United 
States.
  Wheat and corn fields dried up. Without enough forage, ranchers faced 
the decision to either to sell their herds or purchase extra feed, 
cutting into their thin margins.
  As of this week, over 2,000 counties have been designated as drought 
disaster areas by the USDA.
  In my state of Montana, 36 counties, or well over half of our State, 
are in disaster. Compound that with one of the worst droughts in recent 
history and our cattle and sheep producers are hanging on by a thread.
  Where our corn, wheat, and soybean farmers have crop insurance as a 
backstop, we have left our ranchers without any assistance.
  Pastureland last year was scarce and the cost of feed, when it was 
even available, was often unaffordable. Many ranchers are responding by 
culling their herds.
  That is why I have introduced the supplemental agricultural disaster 
assistance. This bill takes the three livestock disaster program I 
created in the 2008 Farm Bill and extends them for 2012 and 2013 
losses.
  Covering losses from 2012 and 2013 will give our livestock producers 
some assistance through one of the worst droughts anyone in this 
chamber can remember. It will also cover our ranchers until the House 
and Senate can complete the 2013 Farm Bill.
  These livestock disaster programs expired in September 2011, leaving 
our livestock producers with no safety net. For over a year and a half, 
through one of the worst droughts in recent memory, our producers have 
been left to fend for themselves.
  Congress must make the responsible decision and pass this standalone 
bill I introduce today with Senator Debbie Stabenow, Chairwomen of the 
Senate Agriculture Committee, and Senator Roy Blunt.
  We must do our jobs and pass this basic safety net for ranchers.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Durbin, Mr. 
        Whitehouse, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Levin, Mr. Rockefeller, Ms. 
        Mikulski, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Reed, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Menendez, 
        Mr. Cardin, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Schatz, Mr. Murphy, Ms. 
        Warren, and Mr. Carper):
  S. 150. A bill to regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right 
to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Assault 
Weapons Ban of 2013. This legislation is urgently needed to help end 
the mass shootings that have devastated countless families and that 
lead too many Americans to live their lives in fear.
  Imagine that you receive a call from your child's school that there 
has been a shooting. How would you feel? Panicked? Terror-stricken? 
Helpless? Those were the feelings experienced by hundreds of parents 
whose children attend Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT.
  Now imagine that, after rushing to the school, you receive the 
terrible news that your child is not coming back. On December 14, 20 
sets of parents heard those devastating words. Their lives will never 
be the same.
  I remain horrified by the mass murders that were committed that day 
in Newtown. But I am even more incensed that our weak gun laws allow 
mass killings to be carried out again and again in our country. Since 
1982, there have been at least 62 mass shootings across the United 
States. Even worse, the rate of these shootings has been accelerating: 
Twenty-five of these shootings have occurred since 2006, and 7 took 
place in 2012.
  These massacres don't stop--they just continue on and on. They have 
become tragically common in our society.
  For each shooting that occurs, there are parents and grandparents, 
brothers and sisters, and aunts and uncles who have forever lost 
someone special in their lives: In Newtown, 26 families will never hear 
the laughter of their son or daughter again. In Aurora, Colorado, 12 
people who attended a movie on a July night will never be able to enjoy 
another night out. At Virginia Tech, 32 families will never see their 
son or daughter again. In Tucson, AZ, 6 people

[[Page S289]]

never returned home from meeting their Congresswoman one Saturday 
morning 2 years ago. My friend, Gabby Giffords, will never be the same.
  The one common thread running through all of these shootings is that 
the gunman used a semiautomatic assault weapon or large capacity 
ammunition magazine or drum.
  These military-style weapons have but one purpose: to kill as many 
people as possible as quickly as possible. Since the last assault 
weapons ban expired in 2004, over 350 people have been killed with 
assault weapons. Over 450 have been injured.
  I do not intend to sit by while these killings continue. That is why 
today I am joining with my colleagues Senators Schumer, Durbin, 
Whitehouse, Blumenthal, Levin, Rockefeller, Mikulski, Boxer, Reed, 
Lautenberg, Menendez, Cardin, Gillibrand, Schatz, Murphy, and Warren to 
introduce legislation to prohibit the sale, transfer, manufacture, and 
importation of assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding 
devices that can accept more than 10 rounds.
  As the members of this body know, we had an assault weapons ban in 
place from 1994-2004. I was the author of that ban in the Senate, and 
Senator Schumer carried that ban as the then-Chairman of the House 
Crime Subcommittee.
  The 1994 law was not perfect, but it was working when it expired in 
2004. The supply of assault weapons was drying up, and crime committed 
with those weapons was decreasing. Don't take my word for it; 
scientific studies bear this about.
  The 1994 law required the Justice Department to study and report on 
its effectiveness. That study, completed in 1997, found that the ban 
was responsible for a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders, 
holding all other factors equal.
  The Justice Department sponsored a subsequent follow-on study in 
2004, as the law was getting ready to expire. That study, carried out 
by the University of Pennsylvania, found that by about 9 years after 
the law took effect, the use of assault weapons in crime had declined 
by more than 2/3--70 percent.
  The Washington Post found that the percentage of firearms seized by 
police in Virginia that had high-capacity magazines dropped 
significantly during the ban. That figure has doubled since the ban 
expired.
  The Police Executive Research Forum found that 37 percent of police 
departments reported seeing a noticeable increase in criminals' use of 
assault weapons since the ban expired.
  Studies of state-level assault weapons bans also show that these bans 
DO work. A study of Maryland's State ban on assault pistols found that 
in the first six months after the ban was enacted, ``the Baltimore City 
Police Department recovered 55 percent fewer assault pistols than would 
have been expected had there been no ban.''
  Let me just address for a moment the arguments of some of the 
opponent of this legislation. They point to overall crime rates, and 
say the 1994 ban did not affect them. But that overstates the purpose 
of the ban. It was never intended to reduce all crime. It was intended 
to reduce gun murders, and specifically mass shootings. And the 
research found that it did just that.
  A 6.7 percent decrease is not a complete solution. But if one of the 
lives saved was your child, your husband, your sister, your parent, it 
makes all the difference in the world. As President Obama has said, if 
we can save even one life, then we must try. And a 6.7 percent decrease 
in total gun murders--that is a lot more than one life.
  Our police officers, the men and women who pledge their lives to 
protect us, are particularly at risk from assault weapons. A study by 
the Violence Policy Center found that, between 1998 and 2001, one in 
five law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty was killed with 
an assault weapon.
  Recognizing this, I am proud to have the support of the Major Cities 
Chiefs of Police Association and several other organizations 
representing law enforcement. Every day, they must stare down ever-
more-powerful military-style assault weapons.
  The legislation we are introducing today will strengthen the 1994 
law, allowing it to be even more effective:
  The 1994 law prohibited semiautomatic weapons that could accept a 
detachable magazine, and had at least two military characteristics. The 
bill we are introducing today tightens this test to prohibit 
semiautomatic rifles, handguns, and shotguns that can accept a 
detachable magazine and have one military characteristic. One criticism 
of the 1994 law was that its ``two-characteristic'' test was too easy 
to ``work around'': a manufacture could simply remove one of the 
characteristics, and the firearm was legal. The bill we are introducing 
today will be much more difficult to work around.
  The bill also accounts for specific ``work-arounds'' that the gun 
industry developed to avoid the 1994 law and similar State bans.
  The bill prohibits ``thumbhole stocks'', which manufacturers 
developed to allow a stock to function like a pistol grip, which is a 
standard military feature in State bans and the expired Federal ban.
  It also prohibits ``bullet buttons'', a feature that certain 
manufacturers developed to evade state restrictions on detachable 
ammunition magazines. Some state laws describe a ``detachable 
magazine'' as one that can be removed without the use of a tool. So 
these gun manufacturers developed so-called ``bullet buttons'' that 
allow magazines to be removed with the use of the simplest of tools, 
such as a key, another bullet, or even a magnet. With these ``bullet 
buttons'', what is supposed to be a fixed magazine becomes in practical 
application a detachable magazine. Our bill contains tight language to 
close this loophole.
  Other changes to the bill include updating the list of specifically-
named military-style firearms that are prohibited, to account for new 
models that have been developed since 1994. We now prohibit 158 weapons 
by name.
  The bill prohibits semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed 
magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.
  The bill adds a ban on the importation of assault weapons and large-
capacity magazines; and eliminates the 10-year sunset that allowed the 
original law to expire.
  Like the 1994 law, our legislation will prohibit large-capacity 
ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds. 
These large magazines and drums are so dangerous because they allow a 
shooter to fire 15, 30, even 100 rounds without having to reload.
  Now, let me tell you what the bill will not do.
  It will not affect hunting or sporting firearms. Instead, the bill 
protects legitimate hunters by protecting 2,258 specifically-named 
firearms used for hunting or sporting purposes, and exempting antique, 
manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons.
  Let me be clear: the bill will not take away weapons you currently 
own. Anybody who says otherwise is simply trying to deceive you. 
Instead, the bill protects the rights of existing gun owners by 
grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment.
  An important change from the 1994 law is that we address the millions 
of assault weapons that currently exist. While, as in 1994, they would 
remain legal after our bill takes effect, any future sale or transfer 
of such a weapon would require a background check to be conducted of 
the purchaser or recipient. We do have an exception for intra-family 
transfers. Keeping these powerful weapons out of the hands of known 
criminals and people with adjudicated mental problems is a no-brainer.
  The bill also imposes a safe storage requirement for grandfathered 
firearms to ensure they don't get into the hands of people who would be 
prohibited from possessing them.
  While the bill permits the continued possession of high-capacity 
ammunition magazines that are legally possessed on the date of 
enactment, it would ban the future transfer of these magazines.
  Finally, the bill allows local jurisdictions to use existing Federal 
Byrne JAG grant money to support voluntary buy-back programs for 
grandfathered assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding 
devices.
  Opponents charge that this legislation impinges upon rights protected 
by the Second Amendment. I recognize that the Supreme Court has clearly 
held that there is an individual right to possess firearms that is 
protected by

[[Page S290]]

the Second Amendment to the Constitution, and I respect that right.
  However, the Supreme Court was also very clear that, like other 
rights protected by other amendments in the Bill of Rights, this is not 
an unlimited right. For instance, the First Amendment's protection of 
free speech does not allow someone to falsely yell ``Fire!'' in a 
crowded theater. Justice Scalia, the author of the majority opinion in 
the seminal case of District of Columbia v. Heller, said this plainly: 
``Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not 
unlimited.''
  Justice Scalia, no flaming liberal he, went on to say: ``We also 
recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry 
arms. [United States v.] Miller said, as we have explained, that the 
sorts of weapons protected were those `in common use at the time.' We 
think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition 
of prohibiting the carrying of `dangerous and unusual weapons.' ''
  The muskets of the 18th Century bear little resemblance to the rapid-
fire military-style assault weapons today, and their single-shot 
weapons are a far cry from the 100-round ammunition drum that was used 
to inflict such carnage at a movie theater in Aurora, CO. These are 
particularly dangerous weapons, which the Government is well within its 
rights to regulate under the Second Amendment and the Heller decision. 
The Second Amendment protects an individual's ability to own a weapon; 
it does not protect their ability to own any weapon. Any reasonable 
person would recognize limitations on this right: an individual should 
not own a nuclear weapon, they should not own a rocket launcher, and 
they should not own a military-style assault weapon.
  Let me conclude with these thoughts:
  The most important duty that government has to its citizens is to 
provide for their safety.
  When 20 kindergarteners are slaughtered by an assault weapon, our 
government has failed to provide for their safety.
  When 12 people are gunned down in a movie theater by an assault 
weapon, our government has failed to provide for their safety.
  The firearms used in these massacres are weapons of war. They are 
weapons designed to kill the maximum number of people in the shortest 
period of time. We should be outraged by how easy it is for the 
perpetrators of these horrific crimes to purchase powerful weapons.
  Let me say it as plainly as I can: weapons of war do not belong on 
our streets, in our schools, in our malls, in our theaters, or in our 
workplaces.
  We know the common denominator in these deadly massacres and these 
daily shootings: easy access to killing machines designed for the 
battlefield. The circumstances may differ, but the one constant is 
always the guns.
  These weapons not only take away the lives of our loved ones. They 
also take away our freedom--our freedom to live without fear.
  When a child is fearful of walking down the street outside his home, 
he has lost his freedom.
  When Americans wonder whether the next massacre with an assault 
weapon will take place in their town, they have lost their freedom.
  I ask all of my colleagues to join me in this fight.
  Join with our chiefs of police who say ``no'' to assault weapons.
  Join with teachers from across our nation who say ``no'' to assault 
weapons.
  Join with the emergency room doctors and medical professionals from 
every corner of our country who say ``no'' to assault weapons.
  Join with clergy from all denominations who say ``no'' to assault 
weapons.
  Join with the 58 percent of Americans who support an Assault Weapons 
Ban.
  I am proud that the bill we are introducing has been endorsed by so 
many organizations and public officials:
  Law Enforcement: International Association of Campus Law Enforcement 
Administrators; International Association of Chiefs of Police; Major 
Cities Chiefs Association; National Law Enforcement Partnership to 
Prevent Gun Violence; Police Foundation; Women in Federal Law 
Enforcement; Charlie Beck, Chief, Los Angeles Police Department; Lee 
Baca, Sheriff, Los Angeles County; Scott Knight, Chief of Police, 
Chaska Police Department (MN), and former chair, Firearms Committee, 
International Association of Chiefs of Police; and Bill Lansdowne, 
Police Chief, San Diego;
  Localities: U.S. Conference of Mayors; Boston City Council; City of 
Stockton (CA); County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors; Ventura 
County Board of Supervisors (CA); Mayor David Glass, Petaluma, CA; 
Mayor Emmett O'Donnell, Tiburon, CA; Mayor Jill Hunter, Saratoga, CA; 
Mayor Hilary Bryant, Santa Cruz, CA; Mayor Bob Filner, San Diego, CA; 
Mayor Bob Foster, Long Beach, CA; Mayor Michael Harris, Pleasant Hill, 
CA; Mayor Kevin Johnson, Sacramento, CA; Mayor Edwin M. Lee, San 
Francisco, CA; Mayor Jean Quan, Oakland, CA; Mayor Chuck Reed, San 
Jose, CA; Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa, Los Angeles, CA; 
Superintendent Anthony Smith, Oakland Unified School District; Mayor 
Miguel Pulido, Santa Ana, CA; City of Lemon Grove; Mayor Cheryl Cox, 
Chula Vista, CA; San Diego Unified School District; City of Calabasas; 
City of Ventura; City of Los Angeles; City of West Hollywood; Mayor Rob 
Schroder, Martinez, CA; and Mayor Amanda Gilmore, Alameda, CA;
  Gun Safety: Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence; Coalition to Stop 
Gun Violence; Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence; Mayors Against 
Illegal Guns; Violence Policy Center; and Washington CeaseFire;
  Education/Child Welfare: American Academy of Pediatrics; American 
Federation of Teachers; Boys & Girls Clubs of America; Child Welfare 
League of America; Children's Defense Fund; Every Child Matters; Moms 
Rising; National Association of Social Workers; National PTA; National 
Education Association; and 20 Children;
  Religious Community: African Methodist Episcopal Church; Alliance of 
Baptists; American Baptist Churches of the South; American Baptist Home 
Mission Societies; American Friends Service Committee; Baptist Peace 
Fellowship of North America; Camp Brotherhood; Catholic Charities USA; 
Catholic Health Association; Catholic Health Initiatives; Catholics in 
Alliance for the Common Good; Catholics United; Church of the Brethren; 
Church Women United, Inc.; Conference of Major Superiors of Men; 
Disciples Home Missions, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ); 
Dominican Sisters of Peace; FaithsAgainstGunViolence.org; Franciscan 
Action Network; Friends Committee on National Legislation; Health 
Ministries Association; Heeding God's Call; Hindu American Foundation; 
Interfaith Alliance of Idaho; Islamic Society of North America; Jewish 
Council for Public Affairs; Jewish Reconstructionist Movement; 
Leadership Conference of Women Religious; Mennonite Central Committee, 
Washington Office; National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good 
Shepherd; National Council of Churches; National Episcopal Health 
Ministries; NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby; Pax 
Christi USA; PICO Network Lifelines to Healing; Presbyterian Church 
(U.S.A.) Office of Public Witness; Progressive National Baptist 
Convention; Rabbinical Assembly; Religious Action Center of Reform 
Judaism; San Francisco Interfaith Council; Sikh Council on Religion and 
Education, USA; Sisters of Mercy of the Americas; Sojourners; Unitarian 
Universalist Association of Congregations; United Church of Christ; 
United Methodist Church; United Methodist Women; United States 
Conference of Catholic Bishops Committee on Domestic Justice and Human 
Development; United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism; Washington 
National Cathedral; and Women of Reform Judaism;
  Medical Community: American Academy of Pediatrics; American Congress 
of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; American College of Surgeons; 
American Public Health Association; Doctors for America; and National 
Association of School Nurses;
  Other Organizations: Alliance for Business Leadership; American Bar 
Association; Black American Political Association of California; 
Grandmothers for Peace International; National Parks Conservation 
Association; Sierra Club; TASH; Viet Nam Veterans in the Media; 
VoteVets.org; and Washington Office on Latin America.
  But we should have no illusions. This will be a big fight.

[[Page S291]]

  It will be an uphill battle--all the way. I know this.
  But we need to ask ourselves:
  Do we let the gun industry take over and dictate policy to this 
country? Do we let those who profit from increasing sales of these 
military style-weapons prevent us from taking commonsense steps to stop 
the carnage?
  Or should we empower our elected representatives to vote their 
conscience based on their experience, based on their sense of right and 
wrong and based on their need to protect their schools, their malls, 
their workplaces and their businesses?
  This legislation is my life's goal. As long as I am a member of the 
Senate, I will work night and day to pass this bill into law. No matter 
how long it takes, I will fight until assault weapons are taken off our 
streets.
  Put simply, we cannot allow the rights of a few to override the 
safety of all. That is not the America that our founding fathers 
envisioned. And that is not the America I want my children and 
grandchildren to live in.
  So I ask everyone watching at home: please get involved and stay 
involved.
  The success or failure of this bill depends not on me, but on you. If 
the American people rise up and demand action from their elected 
officials, we will be victorious. If the American people say ``no'' to 
military-style assault weapons, we will rid our Nation of this scourge.
  Please, talk to your senator and your member of Congress.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BEGICH (for himself, Mr. Blumenthal, Ms. Ayotte, Mr. 
        Bennet, Mr. Rubio, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Reed, Mr. Blunt, Ms. 
        Stabenow, Mr. Tester, and Mr. Coons):
  S. 153. A bill to amend section 520J of the Public Health Service Act 
to authorize grants for mental health first aid training programs; to 
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  MR. BEGICH. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a very important 
piece of legislation--the Mental Health First Aid Act of 2013. The bill 
authorizes grants for mental health first aid, similar to the first aid 
training offered by Red Cross chapters across the United States.
  I introduced this bill last Congress and focused on higher education 
because many common mental illnesses happen at late adolescence or 
young adulthood. However, as the recent tragedy in Newtown reminded us 
in horrific detail, violence is not limited to college campuses.
  My colleague on the House side, Rep. Ron Barber of Arizona, has 
already introduced a companion bill in the House of Representatives. As 
you know, he was critically wounded in a tragic shooting 2 years ago 
with then Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.
  Mental health first aid teaches the warning signs and risk factors 
for schizophrenia, major clinical depression, panic attacks, anxiety 
disorders, trauma, and other common mental disorders, crisis de-
escalation techniques and equips college and university staff with a 
five-step action plan to help individuals in psychiatric crisis connect 
to professional mental health care.
  One in four adults and 10 percent of children in the United States 
will suffer from a mental illness this year. We know what to do if 
someone has a heart attack, but how do we react to someone having a 
panic disorder? Why do we wait for a tragic event to take notice and 
then bring out emergency measures?
  When I was Mayor of Anchorage, we worked with local mental health 
organizations to train our police in Crisis Intervention Teams, a great 
improvement for police officers responding to a crisis. But now we need 
to go further.
  You have heard me say this before, and it is not something to be 
proud of: In Alaska we have one of the highest suicide prevalence rates 
in the country. Further, we are a very rural State, where access to 
mental health care and medical services is often very difficult.
  Even today, it is not widely known that fully \2/3\ of Alaska can 
only be accessed by airplane. By educating the general public about the 
warning signs of common mental disorders, we can intervene early, 
facilitate access to care, improve clinical outcomes, reduce costs, and 
maybe save lives.
  Mental disorders are more common than heart disease and cancer 
combined and a recent Governing magazine article reports that many 
States and localities are moving ahead--teaching their employees how to 
recognize the signs of mental health problems and how to help. Wouldn't 
you run to perform the Heimlich maneuver if a person was choking in a 
restaurant? Of course. We should all learn how to intervene with 
someone who is having a mental health crisis.
  In the Alaska tradition, I seek to work across the aisle and believe 
this legislation merits bipartisan support. I am honored to be joined 
by my cosponsors on this bill, Senators Blumenthal, Bennett, Ayotte, 
Rubio, Shaheen, Blunt, Stabenow and Jack Reed. I invite you and all of 
our colleagues to join me in supporting this vital program. My great 
hope is it will avert suffering, prevent violence and ultimately save 
lives.

                          ____________________