[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 107 (Thursday, June 23, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3137-S3144]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




JOSEPH WOODROW HATCHETT UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE AND FEDERAL BUILDING--
                               Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, in order to expedite matters and move 
on to the vote, I yield my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                                S. 2938

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, tomorrow will mark 1 month since the 
tragic shooting in Uvalde, TX.
  A high school dropout with a history of violence and mental health 
struggles purchased 2 AR-15s within days of turning 18, and he passed a 
background check.

[[Page S3138]]

  He then shot his own grandmother because she wanted him to go back 
into the classroom rather than drop out of school, and then went to the 
Robb Elementary School through an unlocked door.
  He then opened fire on two fourth-grade classrooms, killing 19 
students and 2 teachers.
  The American people were shocked, outraged, and devastated by this 
attack and collectively asked: How can we prevent this from happening 
again?
  Well, the discussion surrounding this topic causes emotions to run 
high, and I understand why.
  For too long, some politicians have tried to pit the right to live in 
a safe community against the constitutional right to keep and bear 
arms. They make it seem like our country can only have one or the 
other--either the Second Amendment or safe schools and churches and 
grocery stores. And, of course, this is a false choice.
  Law-abiding gun owners are not the problem. Men and women who buy 
guns to protect themselves and their family to hunt or engage in 
sports--they are not a public safety problem.
  Following the shooting, I promised to do everything in my power to 
try to answer that call to do something. I don't believe in doing 
nothing in the face of what we saw in Uvalde and we have seen in far 
too many communities. Doing nothing is an abdication of our 
responsibility as representatives of the American people here in the 
U.S. Senate.
  At the same time, I reiterated my bottom line, which is: I would not 
support any provisions that infringed on the rights of law-abiding gun 
owners. Again, they are not the problem.
  But I knew that this effort was about the art of the possible; 
looking at areas where we could agree and setting aside those areas 
where we could not.
  I was fortunate to find partners who were thoughtful and realistic 
about how we could pass this bill.
  I want to thank Senator Murphy, Senator Sinema, Senator Tillis, as 
well as a larger group of Senators without whom this legislation would 
not be on the cusp of passage. Thank you. Thank you for not listening 
to the naysayers and the critics and those who would spew 
disinformation and outright lies about what we are doing here and for 
standing up to the responsibility that we all have as U.S. Senators to 
do our very best to make progress, to try to answer the call in the 
face of these tragedies, and try, in the end, to save lives, which is 
what this is all about.
  Now, less than 1 month after the shooting in Uvalde, the Senate will 
vote soon on the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. This legislation 
will protect our schools, protect our communities, and safeguard the 
Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.
  I have said it before, and I will say it again: No parent should ever 
fear for the safety of their child at school, and no child should be 
afraid to go to school in fear of their safety.
  This legislation responds to that in a positive and affirmative way. 
This bill includes targeted, commonsense measures to prevent violence 
and to save lives while respecting our Constitution.
  (Ms. BALDWIN assumed the Chair.)
  Madam President, the dirty little secret is America is experiencing a 
mental health crisis. Our mental health delivery system is a scandal. 
Too many people are not getting the sort of attention and care they 
need in order to manage their mental health challenges. And many of 
them can be saved from the fate of Salvador Ramos or Adam Lanza if they 
can get access to timely care and the medication that will help them 
manage their mental illness. So this bill will represent the single 
largest investment in community-based mental health care in American 
history.
  That is huge. That is enormously important. And to me it may be the 
most important aspect of what we do here.
  So police officers answering a 9-1-1 call from somebody in a mental 
health crisis, they don't have to take that person to jail where they 
won't get help. They can take them to a community-based mental health 
delivery system--to a clinic. And a person experiencing a mental health 
crisis, they don't have to go to the emergency room. They can go to a 
clinic and get the sort of care and help they need in order to manage 
their condition, whatever it may be.
  This bill will also provide support and services for our schools. Our 
schools should be sanctuary--a sanctuary--for our children, not a place 
where they plan on what will happen during the next shooting and how 
they can hide under their desks or try to make their escape. Schools 
should be a sanctuary. And this bill will provide the kind of services 
that will help identify students in crisis and help intervene to 
provide them the assistance they need.
  This bill also provides major investments in school safety and 
security. It includes physical safety measures. We probably can't 
eliminate human error like we saw in Uvalde, TX, but we can promulgate 
the best practices, which we have done in this bill, from the best 
minds based on evidence--what works and what does not--to make sure we 
keep unauthorized visitors out of the hallways and the classrooms as 
well as evaluate current protocols and, like I said, develop best 
practices.
  Again, those who say we need to infringe on the rights of law-abiding 
citizens under the Constitution in order to make good policy are 
offering a false choice. Passing good public policy and supporting the 
Constitution are not mutually exclusive.
  One of the ways we are providing assistance to the States is through 
crisis intervention grants which will provide the States with funding 
to implement programs to help those in crisis and prevent them from 
committing self-harm or harm to others.
  We have rejected the idea of a national red flag law, even though 19 
States and the District of Columbia have chosen to do that themselves, 
and one of the ways we can help is to make sure that these funds assist 
State officials in training them on how to make sure that the due 
process rights of an individual are protected, as they should be.
  This legislation also closes a gaping hole in the background check 
system which is the lack of juvenile records. This is a real challenge 
because most juvenile records are sealed or expunged. But we know that 
Salvador Ramos, who went in at 18-years-old and passed a background 
check--he was a ticking timebomb. Everybody knew he was struggling with 
his mental health challenges, and he was slowly circling the drain 
because he didn't get the help that might have prevented his self-harm, 
not to mention the harm to others.
  But if a person's record includes a criminal conviction or mental 
health adjudication that prohibits them from purchasing a firearm as an 
adult, it shouldn't matter whether they were 17 or 18 at the time. That 
information should be available on the National Instant Criminal 
Background Check System, and that is what this bill will encourage. Our 
bill incentivizes the States to upload this information to ensure that 
disqualifying criminal convictions or mental health adjudications are 
available.
  Unless a person is convicted of a crime or adjudicated as mentally 
ill, their Second Amendment rights will not be impacted by this 
legislation, period.
  Let me close by saying, I am grateful to Senator Murphy, who has been 
a good-faith partner. He would like to do a lot of things in addition 
to what we have done here, but he was pragmatic and realistic enough to 
know that if we were actually going to be successful, we weren't going 
to be able to do everything that he wanted. Conversely, there were 
things that we did on our side that were outside of our comfort zone 
that, frankly, we are having to explain to people, but that is what a 
good-faith negotiation looks like. And again, I think, on balance, the 
good we are doing here and the potential we have to save lives is worth 
any sort of concession we might have had to make during the 
negotiation.
  Let me also express my gratitude to Senator Sinema, the Senator from 
Arizona, who has been a key partner in the negotiation as well as 
Senator Tillis, the Senator from North Carolina. But the truth is, a 
lot of people were involved in this. And I want to thank all of our 
colleagues who helped us round out this legislation and make sure it 
delivers the benefits that we sought. We also worked with a variety of 
stakeholders from education to mental health groups, to law 
enforcement, as

[[Page S3139]]

well as gun rights groups. And I appreciate everybody who has helped us 
make this product better. And obviously we don't agree on a lot of 
things, but I am encouraged about how much common ground we were able 
to find.
  Our bill has earned the endorsement of more than 100 mental health 
and education groups, including the National Alliance on Mental Illness 
and the National Association of School Psychologists. It has received 
the support of law enforcement organizations, including the Fraternal 
Order of Police, the National Sheriffs' Association, the National 
District Attorneys Association, and the Major Cities Chiefs 
Association. It has been backed by domestic violence groups such as the 
National Network to End Domestic Violence and the National Coalition 
Against Domestic Violence.

  I believe we have in the Gallery tonight people who have suffered 
unthinkable losses of loved ones in some of these mass shooting 
incidents. But I want to tell them that their advocacy has turned their 
pain into something positive. I believe the best antidote for the sort 
of unthinkable loss that they have suffered is the knowledge that 
something good will come out of their tragedies, something that will 
save lives.
  This broad support for this legislation shows that it is a meaningful 
comprehensive response to the tragedies we have experienced. And I am 
proud of what we have been able to do together. And I am very 
optimistic about the impact it will have on our schools and communities 
across the country. So, thank you, colleagues, for working together in 
good faith in a bipartisan way.
  I think in one way we have demonstrated to people that our 
institutions can work. Many have come to doubt whether we are capable 
of making our institutions work, including the world's greatest 
deliberative body, the U.S. Senate. And we have proved that we can, 
when sufficiently inspired by the people in the Gallery and others, 
when they say do something to come together and find common ground that 
will help keep our communities safer, protect our children, and save 
lives.
  I look forward to voting yes and moving this bill one step closer to 
the President's desk for signature.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I want to thank my colleague and 
friend from Texas as well as the team that worked with him--Senators 
Murphy, Tillis, Sinema, and all of us who worked with them. Where he is 
surely right is that we have shown that democracy works, at least that 
it can work, when people come together seeking common ground and 
responding to the overwhelming sense of urgency from the American 
people about solving a problem. And that democracy working stands in 
stark juxtaposition to the tableau on the other side of Congress, the 
House Commission that is investigating the near-overthrow of that 
democracy. So for all who are doubting and all who may have doubts in 
the future, we are providing some reassurance that we can get things 
done and solve problems.
  My mind goes back to watching that Gallery almost 10 years ago in the 
wake of the Newtown tragedy--the unthinkable murder of 20 beautiful 
children and 6 brave educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School. And 
when we failed to take action then on a very modest improving the 
background check system--we had 55 votes but not enough to reach 60--I 
will never forget the cry of ``Shame, shame'' that came from that 
Gallery.
  I remember the Sandy Hook families were in that Gallery, and at least 
two of them are here today, Mark Barden and Nicole Hockley. And it is 
not only those families that are in the Gallery, it is the movement 
that those families, through their immeasurable grief and unthinkable 
trauma, created in the wake of that unimaginable murder. That movement 
is here, comprised of survivors and first responders, medical 
professionals, educators, advocates, and so many others. And today when 
the U.S. Senate passes the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, we won't 
hear cries of ``Shame,'' there will be cries of relief, finally.
  I am proud to have been part of the team that negotiated this measure 
and to have worked with colleagues on the other side of the aisle like 
Senator Cornyn. This is not the measure I fought for. It is not the 
measure I would have written if I had been doing it alone, but it marks 
meaningful progress.
  If you wait to get everything in the U.S. Senate, chances are you 
will get nothing. Progress is better than nothing. This measure will 
save lives--not all the lives that we want to save, but it will save 
lives, and I will be proud to vote for it today.
  After 30 years, hundreds of thousands of gun deaths after Sandy Hook 
and dozens of failed legislative proposals, we are finally taking this 
step forward. The Sandy Hook victims, the Parkland victims, the Uvalde 
victims, and so many more deserve so much better, and they deserve 
more, but the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act is that significant step 
forward that responds to the Nation's sense of urgency to get something 
done.
  One way the legislation will do so that I am particularly proud of is 
investing in crisis intervention programs. This bill will increase 
funding for these programs, including red flag laws and programs 
already in place in 21 jurisdictions like Connecticut, which was the 
first. These laws will keep firearms out of the hands of individuals 
who are dangerous to themselves or others. It is separating those guns 
from people who say they are going to kill someone or themselves. More 
than half of all gun deaths are suicides. Red flag laws are practical 
and proven and they prevent not only suicides but school mass shootings 
and other violent crimes. Just last week, Connecticut probably saved 
tens of lives by separating an individual who told his parents that he 
was having those thoughts again about killing people, and he was 
separated from a firearm.
  I have worked on the red flag issue for years with Senator Graham and 
with Senator Feinstein in the bipartisan negotiations that led to this 
bill. We worked collaboratively and closely to develop the funding 
framework that can support States that already have these laws and 
States that choose to enact these laws going forward. Implementation is 
so important, and the resources necessary for implementation are key to 
making them work effectively. In fact, very arguably, the failure of 
the New York red flag law to prevent the Buffalo massacre was due to a 
lack of resources commitment.
  To alleviate concerns among some of my Republican colleagues and some 
gun owners, we reached a bipartisan agreement to include provisions 
that specify that, for States to be eligible to use funding under red 
flag programs, those programs have to include minimum due process 
protections. These protections are consistent with due process 
safeguards provided in the 21 jurisdictions that already have these 
laws, and several have already been upheld in the face of 
constitutional challenges.
  The Constitution already applies to these laws. The due process 
guarantees would apply in any event, but we had no problem spelling it 
out. That explicit protection in the legislative text is added for 
reassurance. In so doing, our bipartisan group agreed that all 21 
jurisdictions that already have red flag laws will all qualify for 
funding under this bill. So, too, we agreed that any future 
jurisdiction that enacts such a law must at least meet the same 
constitutional due process minimum to be eligible.
  I spell out this legislative history because it is important to 
understand not only the context but also the intention of these 
provisions. Let no one doubt that States like Connecticut, which 
already have these laws, will receive funding.
  I am also pleased that, among other measures, we have substantially 
shrunk, even if not eliminated, the boyfriend loophole. We made straw 
purchasing and trafficking illegal at the Federal level--a measure that 
I know, as a former U.S. attorney and chief Federal prosecutor in 
Connecticut, is enormously important. We are investing hundreds of 
millions of dollars in community violence intervention and in the STOP 
School Violence Program.
  We have been meeting just this week and throughout these past years 
with community groups and educators and others who want to stop mental 
health

[[Page S3140]]

issues upstream before they create violence downstream. I know how 
enormously important these measures can be for Connecticut and other 
States.
  Finally, let me say that I have come to the Senate floor too many 
times--too many times to count--to call on us to honor with action 
those incredibly strong, brave families from Sandy Hook and from all 
around the country who have created this movement that we have now. It 
is a movement that will go on. They are not stopping. Neither should 
we. We need to continue with the same sense of urgency and purpose--
that movement--toward making America even safer.
  This bill is a breakthrough that builds a foundation for the future. 
It opens the door. Hopefully, it will show colleagues who have, 
perhaps, been reluctant to stand up to the gun lobby in the past and 
have helped to maintain the vice-like grip of that gun lobby on the 
Congress that their power is done. They have not only waned in their 
impact, but their intimidation and threats will no longer hold sway 
here.
  So we are saving lives. It is a proud moment for the U.S. Senate, and 
I thank all of my colleagues for supporting this breakthrough measure.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, let me begin by saying that I am 
proudly pro-Second Amendment. I believe in the God-given right for law-
abiding Americans to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment has given 
millions of Americans the right to defend their spouses, their 
families, their children, and their homes.
  But if you consider yourself a supporter of the Second Amendment, you 
absolutely want to do something about Uvalde, to do something about the 
murders related to domestic violence, to do something about straw 
purchases, and to do something about teen suicide by gun. You cannot be 
pro-Second Amendment unless you care deeply about these issues.
  That is why we have targeted legislation, the Safer Communities Act, 
that addresses the specific problems that have led to mass shootings. 
We do it by restricting the access of someone who should not have a 
weapon, by providing additional mental health resources, and by 
hardening schools. This legislation accomplishes these goals without 
infringing upon a law-abiding citizen's Second Amendment right.
  Let me repeat that because there has been confusion in speeches from 
this floor. There has been the internet exploding. There are rumors 
afloat that somehow this infringes upon a law-abiding citizen's right 
to keep and bear arms. That is absolutely false, and if anyone says so, 
they are misleading the American people. This doesn't do any of that.

  What this legislation says is that unless you are adjudicated--now, 
``adjudicated'' is a $5 word that means you go before a judge, and the 
judge looks at the evidence. Under this bill, if a State puts this into 
law, then they have got to follow due process, which says that the 
person who may lose his Second Amendment right has the right to an 
attorney, a higher standard for the evidence that must be presented, 
and that the person has his day in court.
  This was the gold standard that the National Rifle Association always 
advocated for, as if we were going to take Second Amendment rights from 
someone who should not have them, and this bill has that gold standard.
  I had a couple of townhalls just to find out what folks back in 
Louisiana were thinking about as to all of this. Frankly, they are 
talking about inflation and the price at the pump as much as they are 
talking about this, but I got a message: They think that we can protect 
Second Amendment rights and do something about a tragedy such as 
Uvalde. Let me give you some of the comments because it shows you the 
confusion and it shows you the concerns and it shows you where the 
American people are.
  Chris asked if, when he dies, he can pass his gun to his child if his 
child is law-abiding.
  Absolutely. That is preserved. We don't touch that, and, by golly, 
Chris should be able to do so.
  We were asked by Tyler if this raises the age of the ability to 
purchase a weapon from 18 to 21.
  It does not. It doesn't touch that--although, apparently, Tyler had 
been told that that was the case.
  I was asked by R.J. about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.
  I said: Man, we have got something in there, R.J., that actually 
addresses that.
  I heard from two people who said we should forbid the purchase of so-
called assault weapons. Then I heard from one guy who said: Man, I live 
in a tough section of town, and if somebody invades my house, I don't 
want it to be a fair fight.
  So I have heard all sides of these arguments as to what, but the 
message I got was that we can address--we can protect--Second Amendment 
rights but still do something about Uvalde.
  Now, it is not just Uvalde. There are other types of gun violence in 
our society. This bill addresses at least four. There is the domestic 
violence. There is the suicide by the child. There is the gangster 
buying a gun and shooting people up. Then there is the rampage 
shooting. Let's talk about each of those.
  When it comes to the domestic violence--when a guy beats up his 
girlfriend and he comes back with a weapon and shoots her a month 
later--that happens too much. I have talked to my police chief, Murphy 
Paul, in Baton Rouge, and he tells me that domestic violence and 
domestic murder spiked under the pandemic. This bill does something 
about it.
  I asked people who oppose this bill: What about domestic violence, 
man? What about that woman who is threatened? Shouldn't we do something 
for her safety?
  This bill does something for her safety and, quite likely, for her 
children's safety, and it quite likely prevents a suicide by the 
troubled man who goes there in the first place.
  Let's talk about crime, gangsters, straw purchases.
  A boyfriend has got a felony and can't buy a weapon. So the 
girlfriend buys one and slips it to him. It is against the law now, but 
it happens all the time.
  R.J., if you are watching on C-SPAN, man, I am channeling you.
  We took the provision R.J. said we should do, and we increased the 
penalties for that person who buys a weapon merely to pass it to 
another. They will, hopefully, throw her in prison for as much as 10 
years if she contributes to a murder by buying a gun for someone who 
goes out and commits that murder.
  We talk about rampage shootings. Do you know what is much more 
common? It is the teenager shooting himself. We stop that. Oh, they can 
still steal a weapon if they want to, but there is $12 billion in some 
form or another for mental health services. We do our best to reach 
that child.
  By the way, the rampage shooting is the worst. Then comes suicide. 
Then comes the addiction. I am a doctor. I have seen this stuff. After 
the addiction, it just becomes the person who is emotionally troubled.
  We are putting in mental health services that can address it all with 
money for a 9-8-8 line so that if somebody is just like, ``Oh, my gosh, 
I am desperate,'' they have somebody to call.
  Personally, I would like to have an app. I would like to have an ``I 
am a troubled teenager'' app, and ``I need somebody to talk to.'' They 
are doing this in Utah, and they tell me that the investment has been 
tremendous. I think they told me they prevent a suicide a week. That is 
off the top of my head. Call it a suicide every 2 weeks. That is a 
powerful intervention. This bill has that capability.

  Lastly, there is the information regarding the rampage shooting--
Uvalde.
  Somebody told me: You know, I searched on the internet, and I didn't 
see that this guy was troubled.
  That is precisely the point. This man is troubled, but he is less 
than 18. Those records are sealed. You can't get to them. So, even 
though every indication was that this young, troubled man would have 
had a reason not to be able to purchase a weapon, it is sealed. When he 
turns 18, he is a clean guy, and he goes out and buys two assault 
weapons and starts planning his assault.
  If you are pro-Second Amendment, by golly, you want to stop that. 
What this bill does is it allows the court to look into that and say: 
``Oh, he is clean; that is OK,'' or ``No, he is troubled, and we need a 
little extra time to look at this.''

[[Page S3141]]

  By the way, that is a provision that has been distorted and twisted 
to imply that law-abiding 18-to-21-year-olds would not be able to 
purchase a weapon. If you are law-abiding, you can still purchase that 
weapon if you are 18, but if not or if there is another indication, 
then the background check has a chance to look at it. If you are pro-
Second Amendment, by golly--I will say it one more time--you should 
applaud that provision.
  Now, let's do a couple of other things.
  Do you know that, right now, a Mexican cartel can smuggle weapons to 
Mexico to shoot people up? We make that illegal. You would think it 
already would be, but it is not. How can somebody be against that, 
criminalizing cartels for smuggling weapons to Mexico? But, somehow, we 
are infringing upon the Second Amendment rights of cartels. My gosh, I 
wish we would do worse to them.
  We increase penalties for illegal gun traffickers and criminal-to-
criminal gun transfers. We are doing something about criminals, but--
have I said it yet?--we preserve the Second Amendment rights for the 
law-abiding.
  Now, I am a gastroenterologist. So I don't know anything about due 
process except as a term, but in speaking to John Cornyn, who has done 
a fantastic job, and the other attorneys, I have learned a little bit 
about due process.
  By the way, whenever somebody calls me up and they say they have 
heard something on the internet, I say: Why don't you read the bill? It 
is 80 pages. Read the bill. On page 33, you are going to read about due 
process.
  It says that any State red flag law--and we don't encourage those red 
flag laws, but if the State decides to do one and they want Federal 
dollars, they now have got to obey these rules. The rules say that it 
must include, at a minimum, due process rights that prevent any 
violation or infringement of the Constitution of the United States.
  If you are pro-Second Amendment, you should like that. A State can 
actually have a red flag law right now and not have that in there, but 
under this bill, by golly, they had better. How can anyone object to 
that?
  The bill also ensures that no State can sidestep due process. It 
strengthens the citizen's right to due process. It increases the 
evidentiary bar. It can't be hearsay. It can't be a social worker: Oh, 
I am a little nervous. It has to be before a judge, and it has to have 
evidence, and the person losing their right or may be losing their 
right has to have the ability to have an attorney with them.
  Now, no offense to my people on the other side of the aisle, but if a 
liberal State puts forth a law that has poor due process, they won't 
get Federal dollars. That should be something we are proud of.
  My State doesn't have a red flag law. This bill does not require, 
mandate, or incentivize that Louisiana develop a red flag law. But, you 
know, my State does get money for drug courts, for enforcing restraint 
orders so the fellow who is not supposed to go near his wife because 
they are afraid he will beat her up again--the police have more 
resources in order to prevent that. Who can be against that? That is in 
this bill.
  By the way, our legislation also hardens schools. There is money for 
the STOP School Violence school safety program, including school 
resource officers and school hardening. There is additional funding for 
mental health resources, drug and violence prevention, mentoring, 
crisis intervention, high-quality training for school personnel on 
suicide prevention, and human trafficking. How can someone be against 
that? This is a solution.
  By the way, we have a serious problem in mental health. In my career, 
I have been privileged to work with Senator Murphy and others on 
solutions for mental health. There are increased dollars for Medicaid, 
including telehealth services for schools that might be in a rural area 
otherwise without a mental professional around. It expands mental 
health services under Medicaid, school-based mental health services--
all expanded. It reauthorizes the Pediatric Mental Health Care Access 
Program. It gives pediatric providers extra training in mental health. 
I could go on.
  Now, there is still a lot of misinformation out there, but I would 
say, if you don't know what is in the bill, it is online. Pick it up, 
and read it. But if you are pro-Second Amendment, you should be for 
this bill.
  We can protect Second Amendment rights. We can make an impact on teen 
suicide, upon domestic abuse, upon straw purchases landing guns in the 
hands of criminals, and upon rampage shootings, and we could do that 
while protecting the Second Amendment. That is what I am hearing from 
the American people. That is what this bill does.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, today, the Senate is considering 
bipartisan legislation to help protect our kids and our communities 
from the scourge of gun violence.
  This is a critical issue. And it is one we have spent a lot of time 
on in the Senate Judiciary Committee, which I chair.
  We have held nine hearings in our committee in the 117th Congress to 
discuss ways to address our Nation's gun violence epidemic.
  Four of those hearings were held in the Constitution Subcommittee, 
which is chaired by Senator Blumenthal, and I want to commend him for 
the subcommittee's focus on important issues like red flag laws, ghost 
guns, safe storage, and gun violence by domestic abusers.
  And we have held five hearings in the full Judiciary Committee, where 
we have heard testimony from witnesses on how to reduce violence.
  I am pleased that the bipartisan bill before us includes a number of 
measures that witnesses before the Judiciary Committee urged the Senate 
to adopt.
  Last December, the Judiciary Committee held a field hearing in 
Chicago to discuss the firearms trafficking that floods the city with 
illicit guns.
  We heard testimony from David Brown, superintendent of the Chicago 
Police Department, who pointed out that 93 percent of murders in 
Chicago last year were committed by guns.
  Superintendent Brown testified that we need strong Federal laws to 
crack down on gun trafficking and straw purchases, which fuel Chicago's 
gun violence. And the bill before us today provides those laws.
  Straw purchases are not minor offenses. They have devastating 
consequences. Superintendent Brown talked about Chicago Police Officer 
Ella French, who was murdered last year with a straw purchased gun. I 
will never forget the outpouring of grief I saw in the city after we 
lost Officer French.
  The bill before us would crack down on straw purchases that put guns 
in the hands of criminals and prohibited people. The Senate first voted 
on this issue in 2013 and fell short, so this step is long overdue.
  We also held a hearing in March of last year where we heard testimony 
from Dr. Selwyn Rogers. He is a trauma surgeon and public health expert 
from the University of Chicago Medicine.
  His emergency room is on the frontlines of the gun violence epidemic, 
stitching up bullet wounds to save lives. He called upon Congress to do 
more to help prevent gunshot victims from showing up in his hospital in 
the first place.
  He described the way that trauma and witnessing violence harms the 
brain and development of a child, making it difficult to regulate 
emotions, form healthy relationships, and resolve conflicts.
  Dr. Rogers implored us to address these emotional scars of trauma 
that fuel the cycle of violence. And so did Dr. Moira Szilagyi, the 
president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, who testified before 
our committee last week.
  The bill we are considering today does just that. It provides 
billions of dollars in grants for school- and community-based mental 
health programs.
  It includes more than $28 million for a bipartisan program that I 
passed into law in 2018 with Senator Capito, Republican of West 
Virginia. This program would expand trauma-informed care for students 
by training more school personnel and bringing in more mental health 
professionals from the community.
  The bill also provides $40 million to a program I have supported for 
years, the National Child Traumatic Stress Network, which is providing 
specialized

[[Page S3142]]

care to thousands of children in Chicago.
  And it will help expand mental health treatment for students by 
enhancing the ability for schools to use Medicaid coverage for this 
care.
  Helping children cope with traumatic experiences is a vital strategy 
to prevent and break the cycle of violence. The investments provided in 
this bill will make a dramatic difference in this effort.
  At another of our hearings, which focused on the problem of armed 
carjackings, we heard testimony from Vaughn Bryant of the organization 
Metropolitan Family Services in Chicago.
  He testified about the importance of community violence intervention, 
or CVI, programs to help steer those who are at risk of committing gun 
violence onto a better path.
  These CVI programs have shown real promise in Chicago, as another of 
our hearing witnesses, Roseanna Ander of the University of Chicago, 
testified. But the programs do not have adequate funding to meet the 
need.
  The bill before us would provide $250 million over 5 years in 
Department of Justice grants for CVI programs. That is double the 
current annual funding for these programs, and it will make a big 
difference.
  We also heard compelling testimony last week at our hearing about the 
impact of gun violence on children. It is a grim reality that gunfire 
is now the leading cause of death of American children and teens, 
according to the Centers for Disease Control.
  Every day, on average, we lose 12 kids in America to gun homicides, 
suicides, and accidents. In the year 2020 alone, we lost 4,368 American 
babies, children, and teens in firearm deaths--an increase of nearly 30 
percent over the previous year.
  At our hearing, we heard testimony from law enforcement and 
pediatrician witnesses about how the Senate needs to act to protect our 
kids. And we also heard moving testimony from 19-year-old Ernest 
Willingham, who grew up on the West Side of Chicago as the youngest of 
11 kids in his family.
  He has an incredible story. He is the first in his family to attend 
college and the first male in his family to graduate high school. He is 
currently in college in Boston and is well on his way to a career in 
the healthcare field. Ernest has been surrounded by gun violence his 
whole life. His father has been shot. His brother has been shot twice. 
His cousin has been shot. And a few years ago, his best friend was 
killed by a stray bullet. Ernest talked about the anguish of seeing 
loved ones around him get shot. And he described his constant fear that 
he, himself, would be shot too.
  At the hearing Ernest called for gun law reforms, but he also talked 
about the importance of mental health. He urged us to make sure that 
communities that are hard hit by gun violence have the counselors and 
mental health professionals they need to help kids who are traumatized 
by gun violence.
  Ernest, help is on the way. This bill makes dramatic investments--
billions of dollars--in mental health treatment and care in schools and 
in communities.
  I was so impressed by this young man's testimony at our hearing and 
the way he has benefited from ``a village'' of supporters--family, 
friends, teachers, and mentors--to build the resilience to rise above 
trauma in his life to pursue his dreams in the medical field.
  For the sake of the kids we have lost to the gun violence, and for 
the sake of kids like Ernest who shouldn't have to grow up surrounded 
by this violence, we need to act. The bill before us, the Bipartisan 
Safer Communities Act, is a compromise. It doesn't accomplish 
everything I want when it comes to gun violence, and it has provisions 
I would like to change or could do without.
  It won't end gun violence in America. But it takes important steps 
toward making our Nation safer. It is a meaningful bipartisan package, 
negotiated in good faith by Senators from across the political 
spectrum.
  I want to commend those Senators for their hard work, especially 
Senators Murphy, Cornyn, Sinema, and Tillis.
  We have heard so much in the Senate Judiciary Committee about the 
need to do something to reduce gun violence and about commonsense 
reforms and investments that would help. It heartens me that a number 
of those reforms and investments are included in this package, 
particularly when it comes to cracking down on straw purchases, 
treating trauma, supporting community violence intervention programs, 
and investing in mental health and counseling in schools and 
communities.
  This bill doesn't have everything I want. But it is a good, 
meaningful bipartisan compromise, and I will support it. I urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I rise today to thank the National 
Sheriffs' Association for its tireless work on the Bipartisan Safer 
Communities Act. I ask unanimous consent that their letter of support 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                               National Sheriffs' Association,

                                    Alexandria, VA, June 22, 2022.
     Hon. Charles Schumer
     Majority Leader,
     U.S. Senate.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Minority Leader,
     US. Senate.
       Dear Leaders: On behalf of the National Sheriffs' 
     Association, representing over 3,000 Sheriffs across this 
     great nation, we write to lend our support to ``The 
     Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.'' The Sheriffs do request 
     that the Medicaid Inmate Exclusion Policy (MIEP) be addressed 
     in a colloquy as the bill is debated. As you know, the 
     federal law does not differentiate between a convicted inmate 
     and a person incarcerated prior to conviction. This anomaly 
     needs to be corrected.
       Sheriffs see, up close, the daily carnage of gun violence 
     carried out by criminals and individuals suffering from 
     mental illness. We appreciate the authors coming together on 
     a bill that can actually save lives, which is written in such 
     a way that allows the States to craft their own unique 
     answers to the questions raised by gun violence.
       Important to Sheriffs and their communities:
       Supporting better access to mental health services in 
     schools is an important part of early screening for 40 
     million Medicaid students nationwide. Furthermore, in our 
     discussions we have determined that school property hardening 
     is a critical and necessary step in preventing mass school 
     shootings.
       Reviewing juvenile records improves current law and may 
     help detect persons not eligible for firearm purchases while 
     protecting their Constitutional rights.
       Allowing flexibility in the administration of the new 
     purpose Byrne JAG grant program will help States, and 
     therefore counties, implement crisis intervention courts 
     which may take many forms such as Veteran courts, drug courts 
     and outpatient treatment.
       We also find that the due process provisions for extreme 
     risk protection, ``red flag'' orders, maintain the 5th and 
     14th amendments and provide the rights and tools necessary to 
     defend oneself.
       There are many other provisions of the legislation that are 
     also important but too numerous to mention here. The Sheriffs 
     are available to discuss this bill with any member of your 
     Caucus/Conference who might have questions. Thank you for 
     your work on this legislation.
           Very respectfully,

                                            Jonathan Thompson,

                                       Executive Director and CEO,
                                   National Sheriffs' Association.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY. Madam President, 4 weeks ago, I was sitting where you are 
sitting, presiding over the Senate on a quiet Tuesday afternoon, when 
news broke that 19 children--all the same age as my youngest son--had 
been gunned down in their Texas elementary school.
  As I scrolled through the early reports of the carnage, all I could 
think of were these two simple questions: What are we doing? Why are we 
here?
  I sat up there obsessing over our willful decision as a body to 
ignore the slaughter that has become so regular that the news only 
seems to pay attention now when over a dozen die. Our collective 
decision year after year is to do nothing. What is the point of this 
job that we fought so hard to get if we just decide that saving 
children's lives is too hard or involves too inconvenient an amount of 
political risk?
  Shooting after shooting, murder after murder, suicide after suicide--
for 30 years, Congress stood in its political corners and did nothing. 
But not this time. Within 2 days of the Uvalde massacre, Senator 
Cornyn, Senator Tillis, Senator Sinema, and I, joined by other Members 
of this body, had started talking, not about our disagreements--we

[[Page S3143]]

have plenty of those--but instead about what could be possible if we 
sat together and refused to give up until we figured out the set of 
things that we could agree on--the things that could get 60 votes--to 
save lives.
  I am so grateful in the bottom of my soul to John, to Thom, to 
Kyrsten, and the other Senators here who took part in these talks for 
what they did over these last 4 weeks.
  I am grateful to Senator Schumer and Senator McConnell for empowering 
these discussions and allowing us to have this debate this week.
  I am equally proud of my team--Allison and Samir, Emily and Rebecca, 
Pete and Elizabeth--who worked 24/7 for the last 30 days straight to 
get this bill done.
  But mostly I am proud of the regular people all across this country, 
many of whom were forced to become advocates after this epidemic took 
from them a son or a daughter, a mother or a father. Those citizens, 
many of whom are watching this debate right now, who protested or wrote 
letters or showed up at townhalls year after year, failure after 
failure, roadblock after roadblock, refusing to give up because the 
stakes--their children's safety--was so high that they couldn't afford 
to give up, that is who I am really proud of today, people who would 
not take no for an answer and knew that the righteousness of their 
cause had to eventually prevail.
  This bill is a compromise. It doesn't do everything I want. But what 
we are doing will save thousands of lives without violating anyone's 
Second Amendment rights.
  Through more effective red flag laws, by keeping guns away from 
domestic abusers, by being more careful about giving weapons to 18-
year-olds, by getting more people access to treatment for their mental 
illness, this will become the most significant piece of anti-gun 
violence legislation Congress has passed in three decades.
  As a result, this bill also has the chance to prove to a weary 
American public that democracy is not so broken that it is unable to 
rise to the moment when the need for action, like right now, in the 
wake of Uvalde and Buffalo, is most acute.
  What are we doing? Why are we here? We are answering those questions 
today--not fully but with enough force that anxious moms and dads and 
kids all across this Nation will wake up tomorrow and be a little more 
confident that the adults who run this country actually care about 
their safety, because, you know what, people still believe in us. 
People still count on us.
  Two months after his son was gunned down by a 19-year-old with an 
assault rifle in Sandy Hook, one of the dads came to Congress and gave 
this testimony: ``Before he died,'' Neil Heslin told Congress, my son 
``Jesse and I used to talk about maybe coming to Washington someday. He 
wanted to go up to the Washington monument. When we talked about it 
last year Jesse asked if we could [go] meet the President. Now I could 
be a little cynical about politicians. But Jesse, he believed in you. 
He learned about you in school and he believed in you. I want to 
believe in you, too. I know you can't give me Jesse back. Believe me, 
if I thought you could, I'd be asking you for that. But I want to 
believe that you will think about what happened to my son and what I've 
seen. I want to believe that you'll think about it and then you'll do 
something about it.''
  What are we doing? What are we here for if not to do something--
something meaningful, something real, something together--to end this 
carnage.
  Jesse believed in us. And, today, more so than at any time since I 
came to Congress 16 years ago, I believe in us too.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, first, let me thank Senator Murphy for 
his amazing work and that powerful speech. He did a great, great job, 
as did many others.
  Now, tonight, the U.S. Senate is doing something many believed was 
impossible even a few weeks ago: We are passing the first significant 
gun safety bill in nearly 30 years.
  The gun safety bill we are passing tonight can be described with 
three adjectives: bipartisan, commonsense, lifesaving.
  As the author of the Brady bill in 1994--the last legislative effort 
to fight gun violence in Congress--I am pleased that this moment has 
finally come and that we are finally taking meaningful action to keep 
our communities safe. I hope it paves the way for future action on guns 
in Congress and at all levels of government.
  As I said, this is not a cure-all for all the ways gun violence 
affects our Nation, but it is a long-overdue step in the right 
direction. Passing this gun safety bill is truly significant, and it is 
going to save lives. It was so, so significant that we let the process 
work instead of just having one vote, which would divide us and not 
accomplish anything. And I hope that portends doing it again on guns 
and on other issues as well.
  I want to thank my colleagues for their incredible work. This was a 
great moment here on a very, very difficult issue. I want to thank 
Senators Murphy and Sinema; Senators Cornyn and Tillis, who showed 
amazing courage; and all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
for working together to break this logjam. The American people have 
waited long enough. Let's finally take action to pass this lifesaving 
gun safety bill.


                          Amendment Withdrawn

  Now, Madam President, I withdraw amendment No. 5100.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  The amendment is withdrawn.


                        Vote on Motion to Concur

  Mr. SCHUMER. I know of no further debate on the motion to concur with 
an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the motion to concur in the House amendment to S. 2938 
with amendment No. 5099.
  The yeas and nays were previously ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton) and the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. 
Cramer).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. 
Cotton) would have voted ``nay.''
  The result was announced--yeas 65, nays 33, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 242 Leg.]

                                YEAS--65

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Lujan
     Manchin
     Markey
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Romney
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--33

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Braun
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Fischer
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     Moran
     Paul
     Risch
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tuberville
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Cotton
     Cramer
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The Senator from Montana.


                           Amendment No. 5134

  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 
5134 to the title be considered and agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 5134) was agreed to as follows:

                     (Purpose: To amend the title)

       Amend the title so as to read: ``An act to make our 
     communities safer.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 3967

  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, 1 week ago, this body passed Sergeant 
First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our

[[Page S3144]]

PACT Act. We passed that bill with 84 votes in favor of it, something 
that rarely happens around here.
  This bill was supported by the President; it was supported by the VA 
Secretary; and it was the No. 1 priority for nearly every major 
veterans advocacy group in the Nation. In fact, I cannot think of one 
that this wasn't the No. 1 priority for.
  Upon passage, it was transmitted to the House, and they indicated 
that they would move it within days to the President's desk. 
Unfortunately, after Senate passage, the bill ran into a procedural 
hurdle, as bills often do around here, but tonight we have a chance to 
get back on track. We have a chance to get it to the House without 
further delay. And I might add, what this bill does is it takes care of 
a decades-long issue with toxic exposure.
  The ranking member, Senator Moran, and I talked about this bill a 
week or two ago at length. This bill will help save veterans' lives who 
have been exposed to toxins and will help support their families after 
they passed. I would hope my colleagues will keep that in mind as they 
decide whether this is an appropriate time to play political games, to 
delay this bill's ability to become law, and obstruct for the sake of 
obstruction.
  Everyone in this body knows that our veterans deserve more than that. 
They have waited long enough for the care and the benefits that are 
provided by this bill, and they shouldn't have to wait any longer 
because it did receive 84 votes in this body a week or so ago.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Secretary of the 
Senate be authorized to request the House of Representatives to return 
the papers on H.R. 3967; I further ask that notwithstanding the lack of 
receipt of the papers, the Senate proceed to the immediate 
consideration of the Tester resolution that is at the desk to remove 
the blue-slip provision in the PACT Act; that the resolution be agreed 
to and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the 
table without intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and let me 
be clear that the nature of my objection is not about the fact that 
this legislation authorizes about $280 billion, I think, for healthcare 
for veterans that resulted from toxic exposure and it creates new 
categories of eligibility and it contemplates this and authorizes this 
$280 billion of additional spending over 10 years.
  What everybody should be aware of is that absent of this legislation, 
existing statute already obligates the Federal Government, through the 
VA, to spend about $400 billion over the next 10 years on veterans' 
healthcare that results from veterans being exposed to toxic 
circumstances during their service. So there is $400 billion that 
preexisted this bill and $280 billion of new spending.
  Now, the $400 billion that we were already going to spend--and we 
will spend--is put under the discretionary spending caps in that 
category of discretionary spending because, as you know, discretionary 
spending is limited. There is a cap every year on how much can be spent 
in this discretionary spending category. There is one other category of 
spending around here, and that is mandatory spending that is not 
subject to caps. That is just unlimited whatever is required.
  The legislation puts the $280 billion in new spending in the 
mandatory spending category, and we can argue about whether that is a 
good idea or not. I don't think it is a great idea, but that is not 
what really is outrageous about what is going on here. What is really 
outrageous is in this legislation, they take the $400 billion that was 
going to be spent anyway that is already preexisting under existing 
statute--they take that out of discretionary spending and move it over 
to mandatory spending.
  Why would they do a thing like that? Why would that be necessary to 
move $400 billion that is already authorized to be spent under current 
law and move it out of discretionary and into the mandatory spending? 
The reason is because that way you create a big gaping hole in the 
discretionary spending category, which can be filled with another $400 
billion of totally unrelated spending. Who knows on what? That is why 
it had to be moved out of discretionary and into mandatory spending.
  My objection isn't about the substance of this bill. It is about this 
budgetary gimmick that is designed to allow hundreds of billions of 
dollars of additional spending on totally unrelated, who-knows-what 
categories. We have inflation hitting a 40-year high. We have a 
government that has been spending trillions of dollars, too much 
money--printing the money to spend--and everybody sees it every day at 
the pump, at the grocery store, everywhere. And what this gimmick does 
is it makes it possible to spend yet another $400 billion.
  This is terrible policy. I am going to suggest the modification to 
the unanimous consent request from my friend--and he is my friend--from 
Montana. And it is very simple. It says nothing about the $280 billion 
in new spending that is permitted under this legislation. It simply 
would keep the $400 billion that we were going to spend anyway, keep it 
right in the category that it has always been in--keep it in the 
discretionary spending category so that it doesn't create this hole 
that gets filled with another $400 billion on who knows what. That is 
what my amendment does.
  My amendment wouldn't reduce spending on veterans' healthcare by a 
penny. It wouldn't, in any way, impede the ability of veterans to get 
the healthcare that they need as a result of toxic exposures. It has 
nothing to do with that. It is only about preventing huge, excessive 
spending in other categories--who knows what--that would be permitted 
under this bill.
  Mr. President, therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
modify his request to include my amendment to the Tester resolution; 
that the amendment be considered and agreed to; that the resolution, as 
amended, be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made 
and laid upon the table without intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. TESTER. Reserving the right to object. I don't know where to 
start.
  First of all, this amendment does nothing to fix the blue-slip issue 
that was the real problem here. That was a de minimis amount of money 
anyway. Nonetheless, it is a blue-slip issue, and we have to fix it.
  I would wholeheartedly disagree with my friend, the Senator from 
Pennsylvania, in saying that what you are actually doing is stopping 
benefits from veterans with this amendment. We are a body here in the 
U.S. Senate. If you want to talk about the appropriations process, we 
can talk about the appropriations process. But in the process of those 
debates, you shouldn't be denying healthcare to veterans, which is 
exactly what the good Senator from Pennsylvania is doing today. For 
that reason, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Is there objection to the original Tester request?
  Mr. TOOMEY. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The majority leader.

                          ____________________