[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 53 (Thursday, April 18, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2777-S2782]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               SAFE COMMUNITIES, SAFE SCHOOLS ACT OF 2013

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of S. 649, which the clerk will report 
by title.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 649) to ensure that all individuals who should 
     be prohibited from buying firearms are listed in the national 
     criminal background check system and require a background 
     check for every firearm sale, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Barrasso amendment No. 717, to withhold 5 percent of 
     Community Oriented Policing Services program Federal funding 
     from States and local governments that release sensitive and 
     confidential information on law-abiding gun owners and 
     victims of domestic violence.
       Harkin amendment No. 730, to reauthorize and improve 
     programs related to mental health and substance use 
     disorders.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until 12 noon will be equally divided and controlled between the two 
leaders or their designees.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                        prayers For West, Texas

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, it is perhaps an understatement to say 
that it has been a difficult week for our country.
  As Americans hold the city of Boston in their thoughts and prayers, I 
come to the floor to ask for another prayer for the small town of West, 
TX, in McLennan County, which is very close to Waco, TX.
  I just got off the phone talking to the county judge, Scott Felton, 
and he described for me the terrible tragedy that occurred last night 
and the ongoing efforts to recover from that tragedy.
  Apparently a fire started at an ammonia facility that then caught 
some tanks of anhydrous ammonia on fire and they literally exploded. 
And for those who aren't aware of the use of anhydrous ammonia, it is 
actually a source of nitrogen used in the cultivation of crops. You can 
imagine that at this time of year, springtime, when planting is 
starting, there is a lot of use for this essential fertilizer.
  The fire started at about 7:30 last night, and the volunteer fire 
department/first responders were called. The problem was they showed up 
for a fire but ultimately ended up being victims of the explosions that 
ensued a short time thereafter when tanks of this anhydrous ammonia 
exploded. They don't yet know the number of fatalities.
  I saw in press reports it could be between 5 and 15. Judge Felton 
tells me he fears it could be on the higher side of that number or even 
higher; they just don't know. They are continuing to try to find the 
victims and help those who need help.
  We do know more than 100 people were wounded. An unknown number have 
lost their lives, as I said, but we do know that among the dead are a 
number of firefighters, volunteer firefighters, and other first 
responders. As typical, and as we actually saw in Boston, during a time 
of crisis in tight-knit communities such as West and cities such as 
Boston, we see some acts of real heroism that are encouraging at a time 
when we could use a little encouragement. We are seeing the resilience 
of a tight-knit, self-sufficient community in the aftermath of this 
terrible tragedy.
  Businesses have reportedly stayed open throughout the night and 
neighbors have opened their doors to help support the victims. As is so 
often the case, ordinary citizens ran toward danger as they offered 
assistance. One resident loaded his car with people and made three 
successive trips to the hospital. This morning, as I was waking up and 
watching the news, I saw one gentleman who said he made multiple trips 
into the nursing home for nursing home residents who were not able to 
walk out themselves, to bring them to safety.
  As one police officer at the scene said, ``The people of West will 
not let a person stand out in the rain.''
  We, of course, grieve for those who lost their lives and we pray for 
those who are injured and still missing. I ask all Americans to keep 
the people of West, TX, in their thoughts and prayers.


                            Gun Legislation

  Mr. President, on another note--and I say this more in sadness than 
in anger--I watched the President of the United States say it was a 
pretty shameful day for Washington--on the national news. That was 
yesterday. I agree, but for different reasons than the President 
himself articulated. When good and honest people have honest 
differences of opinion about what policies our country should pursue 
when it comes to the Second Amendment and gun rights and mass gun 
violence, the President of the United States should not accuse them of 
having no coherent arguments or caving to the pressure. The President 
could have taken the high road, could have said, ok, now that we have 
been unsuccessful in these measures, let's move on to the area where we 
know there is consensus and that has to do with the mental health 
element in so many of these mass gun tragedies.
  Instead, he chose to take the low road. I agree with him it was a 
truly shameful day. I and many of my colleagues are not worried, as 
some of the press like to portray it, about the gun lobby who would 
spend a lot of money and paint us as anti-Second Amendment. I don't 
work for them. I don't listen for them. I work for 26 million Texans, 
and I am proud to represent them. The views I represented on the floor 
of the Senate are their views. If I do not represent their views, then 
I am accountable to them and no one else, and, no, those of us who did 
not agree with the President's proposals are not being intimidated, as 
he said yesterday. It is false, it is absolutely false to say it comes 
down to politics, as he said.
  For me, it comes down to a meeting I had with the families who lost 
loved ones at Sandy Hook Elementary

[[Page S2778]]

School. I told them I was not interested in symbolism, in things we 
might be able to do that would have had no impact on the terrible 
tragedy that day or in Tucson or at Virginia Tech or in Aurora, CO. I 
am not interested in passing legislation that would have had no impact 
on those incidents and then patting ourselves on the back and 
congratulating ourselves, saying, haven't we done a wonderful thing, 
when in fact it would be to celebrate symbolism over solutions. I am 
interested in trying to come up with a solution.
  I told them that day, the family members who came to visit with me as 
we grieved with them for their terrible loss, I told them that as I 
understood what they were telling me, they were not coming to sell a 
particular political point of view or an agenda or legislative laundry 
list of things they wanted to see passed. It boiled down to this. These 
families--who lost children and parents and spouses--want to make sure 
their loved one did not die in vain. They want to make sure something 
good comes out of this terrible tragedy. Why wouldn't we want to work 
together to try to help them achieve their goals?
  The President indicated yesterday that the legislation he actually 
was pursuing, the so-called assault weapons ban, the background check 
bill, and others--he said none of that legislation would have solved 
the problem these families were experiencing. I happen to agree with 
that part of what he said. But instead of calling the President names 
and taking the low road as he did yesterday and chastising my fellow 
Senators for their good-faith disagreement on the best policies to 
pursue in order to make sure these families' loss was not in vain, I am 
here to ask for his help. I am here to ask for the help of every 
Member, to try to make sure we actually continue to look for measures 
we might be able to get behind to actually make things better, that 
would have offered a solution to some of these problems.
  I have heard Senator Feinstein, who so eloquently spoke in favor of 
her proposed assault weapons ban. She conceded--I think as she had to--
that Adam Lanza would not have been stopped by an assault weapons ban 
because he stole weapons his mother legally possessed, and he murdered 
his own mother before he then went to Sandy Hook Elementary School and 
murdered innocent children and other adults. The background check bill 
would not have had any impact on that. As Senator Feinstein conceded, 
as she must, neither would the assault weapons ban we voted on 
yesterday.
  What might have an impact on incidents such as occurred at Virginia 
Tech? What might have had an impact on incidents that occurred in 
Tucson, where Congresswoman Gabby Giffords was shot and others killed? 
We know the background check system, the National Instant Criminal 
Background Check System, the NICS system that the FBI maintains, 
depends on the States sending information to the FBI that they could 
use to screen out gun buyers. As a matter of fact, the shooter at 
Virginia Tech had been adjudicated mentally ill by the State of 
Virginia, but that information was never forwarded to the FBI to be 
used on a background check so he could therefore purchase weapons 
without a hit occurring on the NICS background check system.
  After 2008, we passed legislation encouraging the States, trying to 
incentivize them to send that information to the FBI so that would not 
happen again. We know from the Government Accountability Office, the 
GAO, that the record of compliance with that law is dismal indeed. Many 
States simply have not done it. I believe there are things we can do to 
further incentivize the States to send that information so the 
background check system, maintained by the FBI, actually works to 
preclude shooters such as the Virginia Tech shooter from legally buying 
weapons because there would be a hit on the background check system and 
he would be stopped from that source of these weapons.

  We know in Tucson, for example, the shooter there failed a drug test 
when he tried to volunteer for the military. That is also a 
disqualifying incident that had it been reported to the background 
check system, as it could have and should have been, would have 
prevented him from purchasing weapons legally without being blocked by 
a hit on the background check system. Why in the world wouldn't we look 
for ways to improve the current background check regime, to stop people 
like that from buying weapons and committing these mass atrocities?
  I believe there is actually a way forward for us, and I hope Senator 
Reid, the majority leader, who controls the agenda on the Senate floor, 
will not choose to quit in our effort to try to find solutions, indeed 
something we need to pursue instead of just symbolic gestures which 
would have had no impact on these mass gun tragedies.
  We do not know what the majority leader is going to choose to do. He 
may choose to get off the gun bill and get onto other business. It is 
his prerogative to file the appropriate paperwork to ask the Senate to 
do that. But it is our prerogative to say, no, we believe we ought to 
stay on this topic until we pass commonsense solutions that would 
actually make a difference in terms of these mass tragedies, and so 
these families could say, no, my loved one--amidst all this terrible 
tragedy, amidst this terrible grief and heartache they are experiencing 
that we can all just barely imagine, that they can say something good 
came out of their loss because Congress moved forward, putting politics 
aside, setting the talking points aside, and looked for some sort of 
common ground that would advance the cause of public safety and, 
hopefully, just hopefully, prevent some of these tragedies from 
occurring in the future.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business 
for up to 10 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           The CDH Resolution

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss S. Res. 85. I am 
pleased that the Senate has unanimously declared April as National 
Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia Awareness Month. I would like to thank 
my friend and able colleague, Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland, for 
joining me in this legislation. This Resolution is very important to me 
and my family, as my grandson, Jim Beau, is a CDH survivor.
  CDH is a birth defect that occurs when the fetal diaphragm fails to 
fully develop. The lungs develop at the same time as the diaphragm and 
the digestive system. When a diaphragmatic hernia occurs, the abdominal 
organs move into and develop in the chest instead of remaining in the 
abdomen. With the heart, lungs, and abdominal organs all taking up 
space in the chest, the lungs do not have space to develop properly. 
This may cause the lungs to be small and underdeveloped.
  A diaphragmatic hernia is a life-threatening condition. When the 
lungs do not develop properly during pregnancy, it can be difficult for 
the baby to breathe after birth or the baby is unable to take in enough 
oxygen to stay healthy.
  CDH will normally be diagnosed by prenatal ultrasound, as early as 
the 16th week of pregnancy. If undiagnosed before birth, the baby may 
be born in a facility that is not equipped to treat its compromised 
system because many CDH babies will need to be placed on a heart-lung 
bypass machine, which is not available in many hospitals. All babies 
born with CDH will need to be cared for in a Neonatal Intensive Care 
Unit, NICU.
  Babies born with CDH will have difficulty breathing as their lungs 
are often too small, biochemically and structurally immature. As a 
result, the babies are intubated as soon as they are born, and parents 
are often unable to hold their babies for weeks or even months at a 
time.
  Most diaphragmatic hernias are repaired with surgery 1 to 5 days 
after birth, usually with a GORE-TEX patch. The abdominal organs that 
have migrated into the chest are put back

[[Page S2779]]

where they are supposed to be and the hole in the diaphragm is closed, 
hopefully allowing the affected lungs to expand. Hospitalization often 
ranges from 3 to 10 weeks following the procedure, depending on the 
severity of the condition.
  Survivors often have difficulty feeding, some require a second 
surgery to control reflux, others require a feeding tube, and a few 
will reherniate and require additional repair.
  Awareness, good prenatal care, early diagnosis, and skilled treatment 
are the keys to a greater survival rate in these babies. That is why 
this resolution is so important.
  Congenital diaphragmatic hernia is a birth defect that occurs in 1 
out of every 2,500 live births. Every 10 minutes a baby is born with 
CDH, adding up to more than 600,000 babies with CDH since just 2000. 
CDH is a severe, sometimes fatal defect that occurs as often as cystic 
fibrosis and spina bifida. Yet, most people have never heard of CDH.
  The cause of CDH is unknown. Most cases of diaphragmatic hernia are 
believed to be multi-factorial in origin, meaning both genetic and 
environmental are involved. It is thought that multiple genes from both 
parents, as well as a number of environmental factors that scientists 
do not yet fully understand, contribute to the development of a 
diaphragmatic hernia.
  Up to 20 percent of cases of CDH have a genetic cause due to a 
chromosome defect or genetic syndrome.
  Approximately 40 percent of babies born with CDH will have other 
birth defects, in addition to CDH. The most common is a congenital 
heart defect.
  In 2009, my grandson Jim Beau was diagnosed with CDH during my 
daughter Mary Abigail's 34th week of pregnancy. Although she had both a 
20-week and a 30-week ultrasound, the nurses and doctors did not catch 
the disease on the baby's heartbeat monitor.
  Thankfully, when Mary Abigail, her husband Paul, and daughter Jane 
Ritchie moved to southeast Georgia, the baby's irregular heartbeat was 
heard at her first appointment with her new OB. She was sent to 
Jacksonville for a fetal echo.
  The technician there told her that she wasn't going to do the echo 
because there was something else wrong with the baby. She asked my 
daughter if she had ever heard of congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Of 
course, she had not, and at that time our family did not know the 
extent of our grandson's birth defect.
  My daughter and her family moved to Gainesville, FL, on November 16 
and Jim Beau was born 2 weeks later on November 30. They heard their 
son cry out twice after he was born, right before they intubated him, 
but they were not allowed to hold him.
  The doctors let his little lungs get strong before they did the 
surgery to correct the hernia when he was 4 days old. Unfortunately, it 
turned out that the hernia was worse than they expected. The hole in 
his diaphragm was very large, and he had almost no posterior diaphragm. 
His intestines, spleen, and one kidney were up in his chest.
  Thankfully, Jim Beau did not have to go on a heart-lung bypass 
machine, but he was on a ventilator for 12 days and on oxygen for 36 
days. In total, he was in the NICU for 43 days before he was able to go 
home.
  Fortunately for my family, and thousands of similar families across 
the United States, a number of physicians are doing incredible work to 
combat CDH.
  The CDH survival rate at Shands Children's Hospital in Gainesville, 
FL, where my grandson was treated, is unprecedented. The survival rate 
of CDH babies born at Shands is between 80 percent and 90 percent, 
while the nationwide average is significantly lower.
  Dr. David Kays, who was the physician for my grandson's surgeries, 
uses gentle ventilation therapy as opposed to hyperventilation. Gentle 
ventilation therapy is less aggressive and therefore protects the 
underdeveloped lungs. My family was very lucky that Jim Beau's defect 
was caught before he was born, and that they were in the right place to 
seek excellent care for his CDH.
  The resolution Senator Cardin and I introduced is important because 
it will bring awareness to this birth defect, and this awareness will 
save lives. Although hundreds of thousands of babies have been 
diagnosed with this defect, the causes are unknown and more research is 
needed. Every year more is learned and there are more successes. I hope 
my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation to bring 
awareness to CDH.
  Tomorrow, April 19, is the International Day of Congenital 
Diaphragmatic Hernia Awareness. In commemoration of this day, a march, 
the Parade of Cherubs, will take place tomorrow here in Washington, DC. 
We will be joined in our efforts by multiple cities across the Nation, 
all of which are hosting their own Parade of Cherubs. Events like these 
will help increase awareness of this devastating birth defect.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am here today with sadness and anger 
after one of the saddest and most troubling days in my career in public 
service. Yesterday the Senate turned its back on the families of 
Newtown--some of them sitting in this very gallery, along with victims 
of other shootings.
  The first words I heard when Vice President Biden banged the gavel to 
end the vote on the background check bill yesterday were, ``Shame on 
you.'' ``Shame on you'' were the words of a rightfully angry mother of 
a Virginia Tech student who was shot in the head twice 6 years ago this 
week. This heartbroken mother had the courage and the fortitude to say 
the words that all of us who have been fighting for commonsense laws to 
reduce gun violence felt at that moment.
  Shame on us. Shame on the Senate. It was, in fact, a shameful day for 
this Nation and for our democracy. The hardest part of that day was to 
explain to the loved ones who lost children, spouses, family members in 
Newtown that day how 90 percent of the American people--the majority of 
gun owners and even NRA members--and 54 Members of the Senate could 
favor a proposal that failed to become law. How could that be in a 
democracy?
  Part of the answer relates to the filibuster, which is a now proven 
despicable antidemocratic feature of this body. I have voted several 
times to, in effect, eliminate it, and yesterday's vote was a nail in 
the coffin of the filibuster because the American people simply will 
not stand for a result that so typifies an antidemocratic result but, 
even more, an antidemocratic process.
  The filibuster fight is for another day. The fight today is to 
continue this effort against gun violence. I will pledge to every 
Member of this body, every person in Connecticut, and anyone who is 
engaged in this fight, that I will continue with redoubled 
determination.
  When I tried to explain to one of the family members yesterday how 
this process could be so broken and reach such an intolerable result, I 
said: We are not done. And she said to me: We are not even close to 
done.
  So resolute and resilient are these families that they should inspire 
us and uplift us in their determination to continue this work for the 
sake of the loved ones they lost and to keep faith with the 3,400 
innocent people who have perished as a result of gun violence since 
December 14 and the thousands who perished before.
  It is not just our opportunity in the Senate--one of the great 
institutions in the history of the world--but our obligation, as public 
officials and as Members of a body that holds a trust for democracy and 
for safety, to provide better security for our people and our children.
  The mother of that Virginia Tech student was sitting in the same 
gallery with those members of Newtown, CT, who lost 20 precious, 
beautiful children and six brave, great educators. They were keeping 
vigil as the Senate turned its back on them.
  Despite their profound and harrowing loss, those parents, husbands 
and wives, sons and daughters, sisters and brothers, grandmothers and 
grandfathers have kept faith. They have

[[Page S2780]]

spent the last 4 months tirelessly and relentlessly advocating for 
changes and reforms in our gun laws so that the loss they suffered will 
not have been in vain. Still, the Senate failed in its responsibility 
in turning its back on them.
  I do not want to relive December 14 when I went to Sandy Hook and 
heard and saw the grief and pain of those parents and loved ones as 
they emerged from the firehouse. That unspeakable and unimaginable 
horror I do not want to see again.
  Yesterday was demoralizing and discouraging but not defeating 
because, ultimately, this reform will be delayed but not denied.
  The massacre of 20 innocent children and their teachers will bring 
us, ultimately, to our senses, but so will the violence, carnage, and 
killing since then. In the words of Mark Barden, whose son Daniel is in 
this picture: We are not defeated. We are here now. We will always be 
here because we have no other choice. The ``Connecticut effect'' is not 
going away. The Bardens are not going away, nor are any of the Newtown 
families. The advocates of sensible, commonsense gun reform are not 
going away. We are here to stay.
  For Mark and Jackie Barden and all of the other families from Newtown 
and every other victim of gun violence in this country, there is no 
going back. There is no turning back the page. We must simply move on 
to the next issue. As the bicycle team who came from Newtown to 
Washington, Team 26, said, we must go on pedaling. The only way to keep 
a bicycle upright is to move forward. That is a simple lesson of life 
the families of Newtown learned in their horrific tragedy. I will 
continue to stand with them and all of the other victims of gun 
violence to work, to fight another day.
  I say to every one of my colleagues, my friends who sided with the 
proponents of fear, do not underestimate the power of the Newtown 
families and the other victims of gun violence. They are not going 
away. They will help to hold accountable and answerable to the people 
of America the actions that were taken here, the votes that were cast. 
Votes have consequences, just as elections do. The people of America 
will remember. Our job now is to raise awareness, spread the rage that 
we feel, raise that rage, and organize and enable and empower citizens 
to be heard and heeded by this body, whether in the next election or 
before then. My hope is that it will be before then because we must act 
before the next election. That action is an opportunity, a historic 
moment we must seize.
  Not everyone in this body turned their back on the victims of Newtown 
or on this cause yesterday. There were genuine profiles in courage on 
this floor, in this body: first and foremost, Senator Manchin, who led 
the fight on background checks and forged a compromise that should have 
won the day, and Republicans who chose to buck their own leadership and 
follow their hearts and consciences--Senators McCain, Collins, Kirk, 
and Toomey. The American people will thank you.
  There are Democrats who took some tough votes--tough votes 
particularly for their States. I thank Senators Hagan, Casey, Landrieu, 
Heinrich, Mark and Tom Udall, Jon Tester, and Senator Shaheen. These 
Senators put saving lives above the politics of the moment. They showed 
true leadership in the face of lies and fearmongering. They deserve our 
thanks and praise.
  I wish to pay tribute to the Senators who have led this effort over 
many years: Senators Feinstein, Lautenberg, Schumer, and Durbin. I 
thank my colleague Chris Murphy for his leadership and his courage. 
Senators Feinstein, Lautenberg, Schumer, and Durbin have been a 
tireless foursome on behalf of this fight. They have been dogged and 
determined. No amount of NRA deception or dishonesty has deterred them 
or stopped them.
  I thank the majority leader, Harry Reid, for his courage. He has 
persevered in seeking a path forward on this legislation in the face of 
some of the most difficult political and procedural obstacles. He has 
been as passionate and persevering in this cause as any one of the 
advocates in these last weeks.
  If you want to know the definition of ``resilient,'' look up ``Frank 
Lautenberg'' in the dictionary because there he was, right here 
yesterday, after weeks of debilitating illness, with his wife Bonnie in 
the gallery. She cheered him on, and so did we. Nothing was going to 
keep him from voting on the gun control bills he had championed for a 
lifetime.
  In moving forward, let's take heart and inspiration from the families 
of Newtown, who have been resolute and resilient at every turn, from 
the continued strength of the advocates, from the courage of our 
colleagues who stood strong yesterday, and from the American people.
  I have said, along with others, that at the end of the day the 
American people would be the ones to make a difference. Their rage and 
disbelief is palpable. They will be there for Daniel Barden. He is only 
one among thousands. We have seen their pictures. They have been on 
display on this floor. Their names have been recited and their memories 
revived.
  Yesterday the Senate said no to America, but the people of America 
will not take no for an answer. As Martin Luther King said, ``The arc 
of history is long, but it bends towards justice.'' We are on the right 
side of history, which will eventually vindicate this cause. I look 
forward to being here, if not within days, at least in the very near 
future when we take another vote and we stand 60 or more strong to make 
sure that Daniel Barden's memory is not in vain and that his brave 
parents are also vindicated in their trust in us.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Murphy). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 717

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to 
amendment No. 717 offered by the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Barrasso.
  The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, this amendment protects the privacy and 
safety of law-abiding gun owners. When government officials release gun 
ownership information, it puts many lives at risk. This includes the 
lives of lawful gun owners, the lives of law enforcement, and the lives 
of victims of domestic violence.
  State or local governments which release private gun owner 
information will be penalized 5 percent of their Federal program 
funding. This includes the release of private information on 
individuals who have licenses to purchase, possess, or carry firearms. 
The funding which is withheld will then be redistributed to the States 
which are in compliance. This amendment will ensure gun owners across 
the Nation do not have their private gun owner information publicly 
released.
  I urge all Senators to support the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this is a case of Washington being Big 
Brother and telling each one of the States--whether it is Wyoming, 
Vermont, or Connecticut--what they must do. We have no idea how it will 
affect them. We do know it is going to cut off a lot of money to law 
enforcement because it is telling States, even though the State 
legislators have gone out for the year, they need to have a one-size-
fits-all. There has not been a hearing on it. It is a feel-good 
amendment. It will hurt our States but, most importantly, it will hurt 
law enforcement.
  If you wish to have a discussion on this subject, that is fine. Let's 
have a hearing. Let's find out what it is. To do this feel-good 
amendment and inform every one of our 50 States there is 2 minutes of 
debate, inform our 50 States we know better than they do and this is 
what they should do, makes no sense.
  I oppose the amendment.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the Barrasso amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.

[[Page S2781]]

  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Cowan), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg), and the Senator 
from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 67, nays 30, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 104 Leg.]

                                YEAS--67

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Donnelly
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kaine
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Warner
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--30

     Baldwin
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Harkin
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     King
     Leahy
     Levin
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Whitehouse

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Cowan
     Lautenberg
     Warren
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is agreed to.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay 
that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 730

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to 
amendment No. 730 offered by the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of amendment 
No. 730, which I have offered along with Senator Alexander and a 
bipartisan group of colleagues. This amendment would reauthorize and 
improve programs administered by both the Department of Education and 
Health and Human Services related to awareness, intervention, 
prevention of mental health conditions, and the promotion of linkages 
to appropriate services for children and youth.
  Basically, title I focuses on school settings by promoting schoolwide 
prevention through the development of positive behavioral interventions 
and supports. Title II focuses on suicide prevention and also helping 
children recover from traumatic events.
  I wish to make it clear this amendment passed our committee last week 
unanimously--unanimously. It has a number of Republican and Democratic 
cosponsors, so I hope, regardless of how we might agree or disagree on 
all the stuff about guns and the stuff that has come up, we can all 
agree we need to do a better job of early identification, intervention, 
and providing support services for the mental health of our children in 
this country.
  With that, I yield to Senator Alexander.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, this bill was unanimously accepted in 
committee. It has the contributions of many Senators on both sides. It 
improves prevention and intervention in our schools, universities, 
communities, doctors' offices, and mental health clinics. I urge a 
``yes'' vote. It is an authorization bill and, therefore, has no score.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  Mr. WICKER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Cowan), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg), and the Senator 
from Massachusetts ( Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 95, nays 2, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 105 Leg.]

                                YEAS--95

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--2

     Lee
     Paul
       

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Cowan
     Lautenberg
     Warren
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under previous order requiring 60 votes for 
the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is agreed to.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, earlier this week, as the debate on this 
legislation began, the distinguished majority whip said that ``we are 
here because of Newtown, Connecticut.'' I agree. Had that horrific 
event not occurred last December, this legislation would not have been 
introduced.
  I share with all Americans the sorrow, frustration, and anger that 
follows a tragedy like what happened in Newtown or earlier in Aurora, 
Colorado, and Arizona. I share the sense that we must respond in some 
way, that we must prevent such tragedies in the future. We feel that 
way even though we know that such a guarantee is impossible, especially 
in a country that we want to remain free. But when a tragedy like that 
occurs, our fellow Americans look to Congress as if to say: Don't just 
stand there, do something.
  If we are here because of Newtown, if this legislation is indeed a 
response to that tragedy to prevent it from happening again, then it 
seems obvious that there should be some connection between what 
happened there and what is happening here. Common sense would say that 
Newtown must have exposed some deficiency in our laws or some gap that 
needs to be filled. Common sense would say that a legislative response 
to Newtown would be something that could have prevented this tragedy 
and, therefore, can prevent a similar tragedy in the future.
  That is what common sense would say, but it is just not true. In 
fact, the same day that the majority whip said that we are here because 
of Newtown, liberal columnist Richard Cohen wrote in the Washington 
Post that this legislation would do ``absolutely nothing to avoid such 
a tragedy.'' Expanding background checks, for example, would not have 
prevented the Newtown shooting because Adam Lanza did not purchase the 
weapons that he used, nor would they have prevented the Aurora shooting 
because James Holmes not only legally purchased the weapons he used, 
but would have passed a background check even under the bill before us. 
We may be here because of Newtown, but the bill we are considering 
simply does not respond to that tragedy.
  As I said, I share the feeling after a tragic event that we must take 
action. We must, however, resist the temptation to believe that more 
legislation is always the answer. The truth is that the Newtown and 
Aurora shooters, as well as the Columbine shooters before them, broke 
dozens of Federal, State, and local laws already on the books. Federal 
law has already created more

[[Page S2782]]

than 60 different firearms offenses. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 
and Firearms posts on its Web site a reference guide to Federal 
firearms regulations. It is 243 pages long. But during the first decade 
of the 21st century, according to the Census Bureau, the percentage of 
intentional homicides from handguns, rifles, or shotguns all declined 
rather than rose.
  Even more important than these legislative considerations is the fact 
that public policy in this area impacts fundamental constitutional 
rights. When other tragedies occur, even terrorist attacks, we often 
hear that such circumstances must not weaken our commitment to the Bill 
of Rights, and I do not believe we should do so now.
  One of the disturbing arguments I have heard so often during this 
debate is that Americans do not ``need'' certain guns for certain 
activities or do not ``need'' to exercise their Second Amendment rights 
in certain ways. This dangerous view gets it exactly backwards. The 
place to start is with the individual right that the Constitution 
guarantees and the burden should be on the government to justify 
infringing or limiting that right. Imagine if the government told us 
how much speech or the exercise of religion we ``need'' under the First 
Amendment or if the government told us how much privacy we ``need'' 
under the Fourth Amendment. My liberal friends would howl in protest if 
we treated other provisions of the Bill of Rights in the way they want 
to treat the Second Amendment.
  The Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right of individuals to 
keep and bear arms. In fact, the Second Amendment merely codifies a 
right that already existed, a right that predates the Constitution 
itself. In 1982, when I chaired the Judiciary Subcommittee on the 
Constitution, we published a landmark report on the history of this 
fundamental right. More than 25 years before the Supreme Court 
officially said so, our report established that the Second Amendment 
``was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep 
and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his 
family, and his freedoms.''
  The President yesterday called it ``shameful'' that the Senate 
defeated gun control proposals that he favors. I disagree. There was 
nothing shameful about opposing legislation that failed to respond to 
the Newtown tragedy, that cannot prevent such tragedies from ever 
happening again, and that undermines the Bill of Rights.
  Two things will always be true as we continue grappling with violence 
in our society: people, not guns, kill and harm other people and 
criminals will not obey the law. It does no good to pretend otherwise 
or legislate for a society in which those things are not true, in other 
words, for a society that does not exist. We have to address the 
society we have, a society we want to remain free, a society in which 
we are protected by the Constitution. I could not support the 
legislation before us because it failed to meet this standard.

                          ____________________