[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the quorum call be rescinded.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.
____________________