[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.
____________________