[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 148 (Thursday, October 8, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7245-S7249]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                   2016--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.


                    Land and Water Conservation Fund

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Wyden and Senator Murray be added as cosponsors to S. 2165, a bill 
introduced earlier today to permanently authorize the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2165

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the consideration of S. 2165, which is a permanent extension 
of the Land and Water Conservation Fund; that the bill be read three 
times and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and 
laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, this Land and Water Conservation Fund 
has been around for 40 years. It has $20 billion built up in reserve. 
The authorization, as it is expired at this point, only changes the 
amount of money coming into it.
  We are still doing the same projects. Literally, this fund has 65 
years worth of reserve built into it.
  What we are trying to find is some way to be able to help protect the 
lands that we already have. We are adding more lands. We are not doing 
maintenance on the lands. We have an $11 billion maintenance backlog 
just in our national parks.
  So I do have a concern that we are continuing to add more lands, and 
we are not taking care of what we have. There is not an immediate 
emergency need for this because the fund continues to operate. We are 
just not adding new dollars into it in the days ahead.
  But, again, we have about 65 years of reserve currently in it. So we 
are not in a hurry. We do want to be able to get this right, though, on 
how we actually maintain our lands as well as actually do purchasing or 
State entities do--whatever it may be--so I do object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, if I could continue, because I am very 
disappointed that these objections are now proceeding. Just to be 
clear, the Land and Water Conservation Fund has been around for 51 
years, and this is the first time in the history of the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund that it has expired. So I hope that sportsmen, I hope 
that fishermen, I hope that everybody who loves the outdoors and 
participates in the outdoor economy will call their Senators and make 
sure they understand that these are important bills to pass.
  We don't want to become the holdup Senate where you cannot get the 
Export-Import Bank finally past the finish line, where you cannot get 
the Land and Water Conservation Fund--things that have worked for 
decades and decades, that are bipartisan, and that the majority of 
Members on both sides support--and it is about making sure they can get 
a vote.
  The Land and Water Conservation Fund has supported more than 6 
million jobs nationwide as part of outdoor recreation, and it is 
credited with over $900 million from, basically, Outer Continental 
Shelf drilling. So those gas receipts paid for this open space that 
then generates more to our economy by having outdoor recreation 
opportunities.
  So every State, I am sure, will hear from cities, from counties, from 
organizations, and sportsmen who will say: Let's get this bipartisan 
legislation passed; let's continue our efforts as a conservation 
country to invest in the things that will help grow our outdoor 
economy.
  I hope my colleague from the other side of the aisle will stop coming 
to the floor and objecting to this. I know there are Members on both 
sides of the aisle who have tried to get this passed. I hope that when 
we return in a week, we will find a path forward to say that this is a 
priority, that after 51 years of this legislation, we haven't lost our 
mind as it relates to how important outdoor recreation economies are to 
our country.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.


                  Tragedy at Umpqua Community College

  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I am on the floor of the Senate with my 
colleague from Oregon, Senator Wyden, to share a few thoughts about the 
tragedy that has occurred in our home State.
  One week ago today, a madman turned a quiet fall day in Roseburg, OR, 
into a day of horror and terror.

[[Page S7246]]

What occurred on the grounds of Umpqua Community College is an 
unspeakable, senseless innocent tragedy--nine innocent lives cut short.
  Lucero Alcaraz was just 19 years old. She graduated from Roseburg 
High School this past year. She had received scholarships that would 
cover her entire college costs, and she had hopes of becoming a 
pediatric nurse working with children.
  Quinn Cooper, 18 years old, also just graduated from Roseburg High 
School. Quinn loved dancing and voice acting. He was just on the verge 
of taking his brown belt test in martial arts.
  Lucas Eibel, 18 years old, was a third graduate of Roseburg High 
School. He was studying chemistry. When he wasn't in school, he played 
soccer and volunteered at Wildlife Safari animal park and a local 
animal shelter.
  Treven Anspach was 20 years old. He was a talented athlete, and he 
worked with the Douglas County Fire District when he wasn't in class. 
His parents referred to him as the ``perfect son.''
  Kim Dietz loved the outdoors, her 18-year-old daughter, her two Great 
Pyrenees dogs, and she worked as a caretaker at the Pyrenees Vineyard.
  Jason Johnson was 33 years old. Jason recently turned his life 
around. After completing a 6-month drug rehab program with the 
Salvation Army, he decided to continue his education. As his mother 
said, he had ``finally found his path.''
  Sarena Moore. Sarena was in her third semester at Umpqua Community 
College, studying business. She was an active member of the Grants Pass 
Seventh-day Adventist Church and the proud mother of two adult sons.
  Lawrence Levine was the professor teaching the writing class that was 
assaulted by the gunman. He loved the blues. He loved fly fishing. 
Writing was his passion.
  Rebecka Carnes. Rebecka graduated just last year from South Umpqua 
High School. In this picture she is holding a graduation cap, and the 
graduation cap says ``the adventure begins.'' She was full of zest for 
the life to come.
  These were nine upstanding citizens of the community, nine promising 
lives cut short. Yet even in tragedy we saw in Roseburg examples of 
resilience and heroism. The law enforcement officers, the first 
responders proceeded to act quickly and to act competently.
  There were students like Chris Mintz, who was shot five to seven 
times seeking to stop the gunman. The sheriff, the county 
commissioners, the mayor, the city manager all made decisions in a 
flash to respond and to address the unfolding crisis, and they did an 
incredible job, but there is no job that can repair the damage done, 
the tear in the fabric of the community or the broken hearts of the 
families and the community and all Oregonians. This mass shooting will 
be seared into our memories.
  The name Roseburg will be added to a list that includes Charleston, 
Newtown, Aurora, Oak Creek, Virginia Tech, and Columbine. This is a 
list of communities and schools that no community or school ever wants 
to be on.
  I was born in Douglas County, in the town of Myrtle Creek. I spent my 
early childhood there and then in Roseburg. That area is an incredibly 
beautiful place. It is home to one of the most beautiful rivers in the 
world, the Umpqua River, and a town that is just the right size, where 
everyone knows each other and everyone helps each other. I am shocked 
when I think of the community, that this could happen there.
  If this can happen in Roseburg, it can happen anywhere in our 
country. That is something that becomes evident day after day, week 
after week. In the course of 2015, there have been 45 shootings in our 
schools across the country, 18 mass murders, or roughly 1 every 2 
weeks. So we grieve the lives lost at Umpqua Community College in 
Roseburg, and we grieve the lives lost in assaults across the country. 
We will search our souls to ask ourselves how we might diminish the 
odds of this occurring in another community, and that conversation will 
take place here in this Chamber in the weeks ahead.
  I want to close with recognizing that if we can diminish the 
opportunity of a disturbed individual to get hold of a gun and we can 
increase the opportunity for them to get help, there will be fewer 
tragedies like this.
  With that, I turn the floor over to my colleague, Senator Wyden.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague, Senator 
Merkley, a son of Douglas County, and reflect for a few minutes on the 
horrendous events of the last week. My colleague has eloquently talked 
about this, and I am grateful for that.
  Senator Merkley and I will be returning home tomorrow, but I want to 
talk a little bit about some of what was inspiring last Friday. My 
colleague and I and our colleague from the House, Congressman DeFazio, 
went to Mercy Medical Center, and we saw all of the staff. My own sense 
is that there is no way you can truly prepare for something like this. 
You can go through as many training programs, have as many drills, have 
as many handbooks as anybody can invent, but you are never truly 
prepared for it. When Senator Merkley and I and a colleague from the 
other body, Congressman DeFazio, walked into that mayhem, there were 
probably 150 staff there, and I said: This is the face of Douglas 
County. These are the people--the doctors and the nurses and the 
pharmacists and the volunteers--who were there in a time of 
extraordinary stress giving those individuals the very best of care and 
that little extra touch of Douglas County caring that my colleague 
knows much more about than anyone else here in the Senate.
  I so appreciated what we saw at Mercy Medical Center because it told 
me that even at a time of such pain and after such carnage, we know 
Douglas County is going to come back. Roseburg is going to come back. 
The reason we know that is because of what we saw there at Mercy 
Medical Center--all of those committed, wonderful advocates who, 
against all odds, came through.
  There is one other part of Douglas County I want to reflect on 
because it says so much about the community. My colleague and I have 
townhall meetings around the State. We have both been in Douglas 
County. I was at a townhall meeting at UCC just a couple of months ago. 
As I was driving in, all of the log trucks were parked out front 
because it is a community that cares a great deal about sensible 
natural resources policy. We had a spirited town meeting, as most of 
the town meetings in Douglas County are, because people have strong 
views, but on that day I saw much of what I saw at the Mercy Medical 
Center when my colleague and I visited--people who care about their 
friends and neighbors, who care about a whole host of issues, from the 
economy to charity to what the Congress is doing, that might actually 
be relevant to them.
  I bring this up by way of saying I am so grateful my colleague made 
the presentation he did so that we understand what a huge loss this has 
been, but I also wanted to touch on what I saw with my friend at Mercy 
Medical Center and what I saw at the Umpqua Community College townhall 
meeting just a couple of months ago. Because at a time of great loss, 
we can also be inspired by what we saw at that medical center and the 
friends and neighbors of goodwill coming together to deal with some of 
the biggest challenges the community and our country face.
  I look forward to going home with my colleague tomorrow, to once 
again talk about the challenges that are ahead after Roseburg. We 
talked a little bit about that on the steps, but I mostly want to say 
that what we saw last Friday in the middle of tragedy and great stress 
ought to send the message to all concerned that Douglas County is going 
to be back. Douglas County is a special place, and as horrendous as 
these losses were, those are people who embody the best of our State 
and the best of our country.
  I look forward to working with my colleague and, with his leadership, 
providing whatever solace we can in the short term and then moving on 
to tackle the community's bigger issues in the days ahead.
  I thank my colleague, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.


                              Gun Violence

  Mr. KING. Mr. President, on September 11, 2001, 3,000 people were 
brutally killed in this country. The response of our Nation was 
overwhelming. We changed our laws, we increased our intelligence 
community's capacity dramatically, we fought two

[[Page S7247]]

wars, and we imposed vigorous inspection regimes at airports and in 
connection with transportation. We made huge changes in order to see 
that such a thing did not happen again. Why? Because we love each 
other. We are a compassionate people, and when American lives are 
threatened, we react. In that case, we reacted in an overwhelming way.
  In 2014, we lost one American to a potential Ebola epidemic. One life 
was lost. Even though it was only one life, millions of dollars were 
spent across the country, and our entire health system was mobilized, 
again, because we love each other and we want to protect each other.
  Over the last 10 years we have had disasters in this country that 
have affected our neighbors, most recently in South Carolina. Of 
course, the two great disasters of the last decade are Katrina and 
Sandy. Again, we responded. In money, $100 billion was allocated for 
relief from those two storms. Why? Because we love each other and we 
take care of each other.
  When we see a problem in this country, particularly a problem that 
threatens fellow Americans, we act. We do something. When there is a 
risk to our colleagues and our friends and our families, we address it. 
Yet we have one epidemic in this country, one disaster that we are 
deliberately ignoring. It is an epidemic which takes over 30,000 lives 
a year, 30,000 American lives a year, and that is gun-related violence. 
The breakdown on that 30,000 figure is over 10,000 homicides committed 
with guns and 20,000 suicides committed with guns.
  Maine is a gun-owning State. Of any State, I think my State has the 
second or third highest percentage of gun owners in the country. Yet we 
have one of the lowest levels of gun violence. Why is that? I think it 
is because of our deep tradition of respect and care for firearms and 
the idea that is passed down from generation to generation that 
firearms are to be treated responsibly and with respect and with an 
understanding of their destructive capacity.
  Thinking about this issue has made me reflect upon what is the proper 
response from what level of government. I do not think all problems in 
this country need to be solved by the Federal Government. I think this 
is one of them. I think there is an important role to be played by 
States and localities because they can adjust their rules and laws 
according to the needs in their States. The needs, responsibility, and 
the importance of this issue in Maine may be different than it is in 
New Mexico or Texas or Illinois or New York. Therefore, under the 
genius of our system, the principle responsibility should rest at the 
State and local level. However, I do think there are minimum standards 
the Federal Government can impose that will enable the States then to 
work within those standards to meet the requirements that they see are 
most important for their citizens. This is a true role of federalism.
  In our Federal Constitution we have the Second Amendment, and I 
respect and support it. It is a basic part of our governing document, 
but the Second Amendment, to me, not only imparts rights but 
responsibilities. Guns are dangerous instrumentalities. Anybody who has 
ever used one knows that, and there are responsibilities which come 
with the right to keep and bear arms.
  Justice Scalia in the Heller decision--where the Court struck down 
the District of Columbia's total ban essentially on handguns, saying it 
overreached and violated the Second Amendment--was very clear and 
explicit where he said: The Second Amendment, like all other amendments 
in the Constitution, has limits. Interestingly, specifically he 
mentioned in that opinion--and nobody ever accused Justice Scalia of 
being a liberal. Justice Scalia pointed out: Of course you can limit 
the ability of felons and the dangerously mentally ill to obtain 
handguns. The government can limit it. And also, the government can 
reasonably place limits on the commercial transaction, the sale and 
purchase of guns.
  We are here today because of one more in a depressingly familiar 
series of mass shooting incidents: Columbine, Newtown, and now Oregon. 
All over the country this is happening in a repetitive way. It is 
important to use this occasion to reflect upon the dangers we are 
ignoring, the epidemic we are ignoring, but I think we also have to 
realize that mass shootings, as horrendous as they are, are not the 
bulk of the crimes committed with guns and the deaths dealt by guns in 
this country; that those are everyday criminals, abusive spouses, and, 
sadly, people taking their own lives. Don't forget that those 30,000 
deaths a year of our fellow citizens are not all in mass shooting 
situations, but they involve many other circumstances.
  So what is the solution? A friend of mine in Maine coined the term, 
which I think aptly applies--in fact, it probably applies in this case 
more than any other: There is no silver bullet. There may, however, be 
silver ``buckshot''--a multiplicity of solutions, no single solution. 
Nothing we do today in the way of background checks or anything else is 
going to solve this problem entirely. We must recognize that. So we 
must move in a comprehensive way--not only on the Federal level but on 
the State level as well--not to compromise the Second Amendment, not to 
take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, not to make it 
inherently more difficult for law-abiding citizens to maintain them but 
to put into place commonsense solutions to deal with this epidemic of 
gun violence.
  The first, of course--and I commend my colleague from Maine for 
emphasizing this today; that is, we have to deal with the failures of 
our mental health system. In all of these mass shooting incidents, it 
appears that the perpetrators had some significant mental health 
issues. We have to deal with that. We have to have a better system that 
finds people in advance, before they act out their violent fantasies. 
We have to try to intervene and help those people before violence 
occurs.
  So mental health has to be a part of this, but it is not the whole 
answer because people with those kinds of proclivities, whether they 
are violence-prone felons or people with dangerous mental health 
issues, we simply have to keep guns out of their hands.
  That brings us to the second commonsense solution, which is 
background checks, which we already have. We have had them for 15 or 20 
years. Some people say: Well, we are worried about background checks 
because it will lead to a Federal registry, and they will know who has 
the guns and then they will come and get them. We have had the 
background checks for a number of years. That hasn't happened. In the 
Manchin-Toomey bill that we voted on a few years ago, it was a felony 
for any Federal official to create a registry that would be available 
to the government.
  The simple, basic, commonsense idea of a background check is to see 
whether someone is a convicted felon or has demonstrated a dangerous 
mental illness that should disqualify them from having a firearm. That 
is common sense. That has been supported--is supported--by a majority 
of gun owners and by the vast majority of the American people. It was 
even supported by some of the national gun organizations as recently as 
10 or 15 years ago but no longer, for reasons I don't understand.
  Another part of the package I think will be introduced in the next 
week or so is to add convicted spousal abusers to the list--which, 
again, is common sense. I mentioned in Maine we have a very low level 
of gun violence, but much of it involves spouse upon spouse. If we have 
a case where someone has been convicted of spousal abuse, to me, again 
it is common sense that they should not be able to obtain a gun.
  Finally, if we are going to have a system of background checks that 
is nationwide--that, by the way, should be efficient--in this day and 
age, there is no reason it has to take any kind of long period to 
check, but if we have such a system, then it doesn't make sense to turn 
a blind eye to trafficking and straw purchases, which are essentially 
designed to get guns into the hands of people who otherwise couldn't 
buy them.
  That is a modest package. To the express language of Justice Scalia, 
it doesn't violate the Second Amendment, and it will not solve the 
whole problem. Nothing is going to solve the whole problem. We are a 
human society, and humans, sadly, are often prone to violence, but it 
can make a difference. It can make a difference. Remember, we are 
talking about 30,000 people a year--30,000 people a year.

[[Page S7248]]

  The American people send us to address issues, to address problems. 
On September 11, Congress acted. After Sandy and Katrina, Congress 
acted. During the Ebola crisis, Congress and the American health system 
acted. Why? Because we love each other and we value each other. It 
seems to me this is exactly the same case. We look out across the 
country, and one of the problems with this issue is it is slow motion 
and small. Every now and then we have one of these incidents, like we 
did last week, where a significant number of people are killed in 1 
day, but the truth is, 10,000 people a year are murdered in the United 
States--10,000 people a year--not necessarily in a mass shooting. But 
30,000 people a year altogether, if we include suicides, is a small 
American town disappearing every year. If all of these deaths occurred 
in one town or in Iowa or Illinois or Chicago or California, we would 
be on this. We would find the cause. We would be at least trying to 
prevent it, but because it happens in slow motion in small ways across 
the country, in small towns and large cities, we are ignoring it.
  The incident in Oregon gives us an occasion to remind us once again 
of how serious this is and that we have an opportunity to do something 
about it, not by overreaching, not by violating the Second Amendment, 
not by impinging on the rights of law-abiding gun owners--of whom we 
have many in Maine--but simply by the commonsense imposition of a 
nationwide system to be sure that people who are felons or dangerously 
mentally ill can't get guns. I don't understand how anybody can object 
to that goal because I care about my fellow Americans, I love my fellow 
Americans, and I want to protect them from harm.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                         Health Care Excise Tax

  Mr. HELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to share my concerns with the 
devastating impact of the Cadillac tax, enacted as part of the 
Affordable Care Act. The Cadillac tax is a 40-percent excise tax set to 
take effect in 2018 on employer-sponsored health care plans around the 
country. This is precisely why I have authored the only bipartisan 
piece of legislation that would fully repeal this onerous tax. The 
reason I did so is that in Nevada, 1.3 million workers who have 
employer-sponsored health insurance plans will be hit by this Cadillac 
tax. These are public employees in Carson City. They are service 
industry workers on the Strip in Las Vegas, small business owners, and 
retirees all across the State. Hardly anyone in Nevada will be shielded 
from the devastating effects of this Cadillac tax.
  What I am most proud of on this piece of legislation is the fact that 
we have 14 other cosponsors here in the Senate. It is also sponsored 
and supported by 75 other organizations across the country. Some of 
those organizations include unions, chambers of commerce, small 
business owners, State and local government employees, and retirees, 
and they are all saying the same thing: The Cadillac tax needs to be 
fully repealed or our employees will experience massive changes to 
their health care.
  We are talking about reduced benefits. We are talking about increased 
premiums. We are talking about higher deductibles. Over 33 million 
Americans who use flexible spending accounts, FSAs, and 13.5 million 
Americans who use health savings accounts, HSAs, may see these accounts 
vanish in the coming years as companies scramble to avoid the law's 40-
percent excise tax. HSAs and FSAs are used for things such as hospital 
and maternity services. They are used for dental care, physical 
therapy, and they are also used for mental health services--something 
we badly need today. Access to these lifesaving services could all be 
gone for tens of millions of Americans if the Cadillac tax is not fully 
repealed.
  I have heard from employers--from big business, to unions, to small 
businesses from all over Nevada--who are saying that they will 
inevitably have to eliminate services their workers currently enjoy. 
They will have to cut certain health care providers out of their 
networks.
  This goes to the heart of the broken promises of ObamaCare; that is, 
if you like your health care, you can keep it; if you like your doctor, 
you can keep your doctor.
  Earlier this week, I held a telephone townhall meeting with thousands 
of Nevadans from all walks of life. During the meeting, I asked the 
participants on the call ``Should the Cadillac tax be repealed?'' One 
of the best parts about these tele-townhall meetings is that you can do 
these surveys. We do this weekly. The question this week was ``Should 
the Cadillac tax be repealed?'' Almost 70 percent of them said ``Yes, 
the Cadillac tax should be fully repealed.'' Let me repeat that. Almost 
70 percent of Nevadans supported the repealing of the Cadillac tax. 
They see this as a burdensome and costly tax that will hurt hard-
working Nevadans, hard-working Americans.
  The onerous tax targets Americans who already have high-quality 
health care. No one claims that our health care system ever was or is 
perfect. The goal of health reform should be to help those who do not 
have health care coverage and lower costs for those who already have 
insurance. This tax does not achieve either one of these goals.
  It is very rare these days to see this much agreement in Washington. 
Organized labor, the chamber of commerce, local and State governments, 
and small businesses have all come together with a bipartisan group of 
Senators putting forth a solution to fix a problem affecting so many 
hard-working Americans and their families.
  Some Members on both sides of the aisle have tried to make this a 
partisan issue for different reasons, but this is not a partisan issue, 
which is evident by the fact that the companion legislation to my bill 
in the House enjoys more Democratic cosponsors than Republicans.
  Fully repealing the Cadillac tax is an opportunity for Republicans 
and Democrats to join forces and work together to repeal a bad tax for 
one purpose; that is, to help 151 million workers keep the health care 
insurance that they like.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                              Gun Violence

  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, for 20 years one of the biggest billboards 
in America was next to Fenway Park, facing the Massachusetts Turnpike. 
It had a giant number counter on it.
  When I was running for the Senate in 2012, I would drive past that 
billboard sometimes three or four times a day. Each time, I would look 
up at the counter to see how it had changed since the last trip--up 2, 
up 6, up 12. The billboard was from Stop Handgun Violence, and it 
showed the number of children killed by guns in the United States.
  When the tragedy happened at Sandy Hook Elementary School, my first 
thought was of the 20 little children who would be added to the count 
on that billboard. I thought about how we, the grownups, had failed to 
keep safe the thousands of children counted there.
  There are mass shootings, everyday shootings, drive-by shootings, 
random shootings, sometimes with big headlines and mostly with no 
headlines at all.
  The facts are simple: Eighty-eight Americans die every day from gun 
violence. Seven of those people are children or teens. That is seven a 
day, every day, young bodies piling up by the thousands year after 
year. What has happened to us? If seven children were dying every day 
from a mysterious virus, our country would pull out all the stops to 
figure out what had gone wrong and to fix it.
  Gun violence is an epidemic--an epidemic that kills children, kills 
them in schools, on playgrounds, and in our neighborhoods. But day 
after day, month after month, tragedy after tragedy, the Congress has 
done nothing--nothing. Republicans in the Senate have blocked even the 
smallest steps to protect our communities and keep our children safe.
  This must stop now. Today, Senate Democrats are calling on 
Republicans to join us in supporting three measures

[[Page S7249]]

to reduce gun violence. First, end the gun show loophole. Everyone gets 
a background check. Second, end straw purchases. The one who gets 
checked has to be the true owner. Third, close holes in the background 
check database and stop domestic abusers from purchasing guns, period.
  Look, let's be frank. These three steps will not be enough to stop 
all handgun violence in our communities, but these are meaningful steps 
in the right direction--steps that huge majorities of Americans 
support, steps that are calm and sensible. These three steps are a 
test--a test for every single Member of Congress. These three steps put 
the question to everyone in Congress: Whom do you work for? Do you 
represent the people who have lost children or sisters or cousins to 
gun violence and who have stood at gravesides and sworn that we will 
make change? Do you represent the people who don't want their loved 
ones to be the next victims? Do you represent the people who want some 
sensible rules about gun safety? Or do you represent the NRA? It is 
time to make a choice right here in Congress--the American people or 
the NRA.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I withdraw the motion to proceed to 
H.R. 2028.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is withdrawn.

                          ____________________