[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.
____________________