[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5298-5304]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




         SAFE COMMUNITIES, SAFE SCHOOLS ACT OF 2013--Continued

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I rise today as a mother, a grandmother, 
and a Senator--a Senator whose State has been touched far too many 
times by gun violence, including mass shootings. I also wish to 
reiterate my support for the people of Boston who are dealing with the 
aftermath of senseless, tragic, and cowardly violence.
  I think I need to put into context why I have for so long been an 
advocate of gun safety measures. In January 1989, a gunman stepped onto 
the grounds of Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, CA. He fired at 
least 106 bullets from an AK-47 rifle across the schoolyard. He killed 
5 children, ages 6 to 9, and 1 teacher, and he

[[Page 5299]]

injured 29 other students before fatally shooting himself. This 
horrific crime led California to enact an assault weapons ban and, of 
course, we know that assault weapons ban in California is still in 
place. I so appreciate Senator Feinstein's leadership in trying to, 
once again, authorize at the Federal level an assault weapons ban.
  Californians still remember this tragedy in Stockton, just as the 
Nation will always remember the victims of the horrific events of 
Friday, December 14, 2012, at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
  I flash forward to from 1989 and the Stockton tragedy to a law office 
in San Francisco in 1993, where a crazed gunman--I remember his name, 
but I will not say it--with an assault weapon killed eight people and 
wounded six. One of those people was a brave lawyer who threw his body 
over the body of his wife, sacrificing his own life to save hers. That 
young man was one of my son's best friends, and I know personally how 
these horrific and senseless tragedies live on with the survivors--the 
parents, the spouses, the children, the families, and the friends. It 
changes their lives and it pierces their hearts forever.
  I have told you a couple of stories about California. But let me say 
this: Let's look at what has happened across this Nation since Sandy 
Hook. In the 120 days since Sandy Hook, more than 2,200 Americans have 
been killed by gun violence. Hardly any place was spared.
  We know there are many, many firearms in America. There are 300 
million firearms in the United States. If you were to divide that up, 
that would be one gun per person, of course. There are many people who 
have many, many guns.
  This is a 50-percent increase--the number of guns in circulation--
since 1995, when there were, as I say, about half that number.
  When I go home and I speak about this--and I write about it--I say: 
There are 31,000 reasons why we need to pass sensible gun laws 
because--31,000--that is the number of people who die every year in 
America from gun violence. That is 87 people every single day, on 
average.
  You look at this: 31,000 people dying every year from gun violence. 
So how do you get a sense of what that is? I think back. One of the 
reasons I got into politics in the first place was the war in Vietnam 
and trying to end it, first as an activist and then, actually, as an 
elected leader in my country. I think about how many people died in the 
10-year war of Vietnam and it was a little bit more than 50,000 in that 
10-year period and it turned our country upside down--upside down. I 
can tell you, I lived through it: generation against generation. It was 
a very tough time in this Nation. People lost faith in the country. It 
was tough.
  Yet we have 31,000 people killed every year in America from gun 
violence, and it is something where we all kind of just say: OK, that 
is terrible, but we do not do anything about it. But we are about to do 
something about it that is very important. It may not be everything I 
would want to do, given my history on this issue, but I will say, if we 
can move forward with sensible background checks--and I thank Senators 
Manchin and Toomey so much, so much, for their work--and if we can do 
something about straw purchasers, and if we can do something about 
making our schools safer--which I am pleased to say I wrote the 
legislation that is in the underlying bill before us--if we can do a 
few of these things, it would be a big step forward.
  Do I want to see more done? Yes. Do I want to see the ban on assault 
weapons reinstated? I do. But I do feel we are at a point in time where 
we may be able to get something done that matters.
  I think we ought to look at mass shootings in the last 30 years. 
First of all, 40 percent of mass shootings have occurred since 2006. So 
if you go back 30 years, you see 40 percent took place since 2006.
  According to the Washington Post, in 2012 alone, 175 people were 
killed or wounded from mass shootings. People who should not get these 
weapons are getting these weapons. People with severe mental illness 
are getting these weapons. We know that.
  Today, we got to see in the Democratic Caucus lunch a heroine, 
someone who is unbelievable, Gabby Giffords, struggle with each step, 
with every word. Why? What did she do? She held a townhall meeting so 
she could bring government to her people in the most personal of ways. 
And someone who was very sick got access to weapons, and the rest we 
know.
  In the name of those who were lost, Gabby Giffords and her husband 
Mark Kelly have been truthtellers. These people--Mark and Gabby--are 
gun owners, proud gun owners. They are not coming from a different 
place. Yet they are standing for sensible gun laws. I am so grateful to 
them for dedicating their lives to this, and I am so grateful to the 
parents of the children and all the victims at Sandy Hook for putting a 
human face on these numbers.
  Madam President, 175--what does that mean? If you saw the faces you 
would know what it means. And sometimes the wounds, as we see with 
Gabby, are so hard to deal with.
  We can make it harder for people who are criminals, who have no right 
to have a gun, we can make it harder for them by making sure they have 
to undergo a background check.
  Today, I learned from Mark Kelly that we, through the background 
checks that we already have--that is when people go to a regular retail 
store--we have stopped well over a million gun sales, well over. Yet we 
do not have that same system in place for gun shows or private sales.
  So Joe Manchin and Senator Toomey have been working together, and 
they have crafted a way to move toward a sensible background check--
yes, protecting family members who want to give a gun to the next, but 
they have preserved, the most important part of their bill, which is to 
simply make a uniform standard for a gun sale wherever you purchase 
your gun.
  Some of the strongest proponents of this are people who run retail 
stores who go through the laborious situation--although it is pretty 
quick now--of doing a background check. Yet somebody can go across the 
street to a gun show and make a deal and never be asked, and they could 
be a criminal, they could be mentally unbalanced, they could be a 
terrorist, OK, and still get a gun.
  I want to look at the issue of school shootings in America. The 
tragedy that took place at Sandy Hook is a tragedy that far too many of 
our Nation's communities have faced in recent years.
  I have in the Chamber a chart that shows that since the year of 
Columbine, 262 students, teachers, and others have been killed or 
wounded in K-12 school shootings. People go to school. It is supposed 
to be a protected zone. Who thinks about this? Look how many people 
since Columbine. And we swore we would never allow that to happen 
again. It is happening. So we have to do more.
  I tell you, this is just K-12. But if you look at America's colleges 
and universities, in my own State, at California's Oikos University, in 
2012--it is in Oakland--a former student returned to the campus and 
killed seven people and injured three. We have these horrible violent 
incidents at colleges and universities.
  School shootings are on the rise in America. I am telling you. I have 
the numbers to show it on this chart. Divided up by decades, we go 
back. From 1979 to 1988--this is the number of incidents at schools; 
not the people killed, but the number of school shootings--there were 
27. This is just for K-12. This does not include the universities. So 
for K-12, from 1979 to 1988, 27 incidents; from 1989 to 1998, 55 
incidents; from 1999 to 2008, 66 incidents.
  This is a number we do not want to keep going up. In so many of these 
cases it could have been prevented. I am not saying every case, but 
certainly in some cases. If we were able to do something about the 
magazine capacity here, that would have a big impact on the numbers as 
well. So we are moving up, and that is not a good number.
  The parents of the fallen children at Sandy Hook and Oikos in my home 
State have joined countless other parents who have lost their children 
in

[[Page 5300]]

violent assaults on our Nation's schools and colleges. They have joined 
with parents of Colorado's Columbine High School, California's Santana 
High School, Minnesota's Red Lake Senior High School, West Nickel Mines 
School in Pennsylvania, Virginia Tech, and so many others.
  The shooting at Sandy Hook is another reminder that we have failed 
our children. I do not know how to put it another way. I am so sad 
about it. This topic is so heavy in my heart because I know we can do 
some things to change it. I believe we are on the brink of doing some 
things--not enough in my view but some things to change it.
  I could tell you, Madam President--because the Presiding Officer was 
there today--we had quite a caucus today. Our colleagues who stood up, 
who have seen these tragedies in their States, were beyond eloquent. 
Our colleagues--who are trying to do something that, yes, may be 
politically difficult--are showing courage.
  It is one of those moments when you say: I am blessed to be here, and 
I can do something about this. I think more and more of our colleagues 
are beginning to realize this, as they meet with the parents and they 
meet with colleagues and they sit down one-on-one.
  We have to keep our children safe.
  One of the pieces of legislation that is less controversial that is 
included in the base bill before us is the School and Campus Safety 
Enhancements Act that I have authored with Senator Collins, Senator 
Warner, and Senator Kirk to help secure our Nation's schools.
  For years, we had the very successful Secure Our Schools program. 
Basically, we build from that program and we make some changes to it 
that I think will make it better.
  I want to explain the way it would work. What we say is, if a local 
entity--and this could be a police department; it could be school 
districts--if they feel they want to secure their schools, they will 
have to put some funds on the line, about 50 percent of the funding. 
But we would supplement that funding by 50 percent. We would help to 
pay for security-related capital improvements at the school plant.
  A lot of our schools are old. When they were built, no one thought 5 
seconds about some of these issues. Classroom locks, lighting, fencing, 
reinforced doors, security assessments, training for students and 
teachers and administrators, coordination with local law enforcement--
there are so many things we can do. But we know our school districts 
and our local police departments are stretched right now.
  We want to help them pay for some of these things--perimeter fencing, 
for example, and cameras. You could see someone coming onto the campus 
and take action to either alert your school officers who may be there 
or your local police department to prepare.
  We have had a similar program in place since 2002, but the 
authorization expired in 2009. In the past, 5,500 schools have received 
these funds, but the funds were not even sufficient. Fifty-four percent 
of the entities that applied for these grants were turned away. So we 
know this is a program the schools like because they took advantage of 
it. But we ran out of funds. We want to make sure we reauthorize this. 
In the past, programs such as the one in the bill passed with a 307-to-
1 vote in the House and the Senate 95 to 0.
  What we do is reauthorize the Safety in Schools Program for 10 years. 
We increase the authorization to $40 million a year. We allow more 
flexibility. We do not say what they have to use it for. By the way, 
they do not use it for more cops in schools. That is another issue. It 
is not in this particular piece. It is something I care about and want 
to work on. It is not in this bill.
  What is in this bill is making capital improvements to the 
facilities. It is not a one-size-fits-all. Some people do not need a 
fence or a camera or a door. We leave it up to the schools. 
Flexibility. We also do something Senator Warner truly wanted. We 
create a Department of Justice and Department of Education task force 
to develop advisory school safety guidelines. We include language from 
Senator Grassley to ensure adequate grant accountability. Senator 
Warner and Senator Kirk also wanted to create a National Center for 
Campus Public Safety, which will serve as a clearinghouse for 
education, training, and best practices. Here is the thing. Some of our 
campuses know how to do this and others do not. So we want to make sure 
there is a central place one can find out the best practices.
  I was going to go through, in closing, some of the ways these funds 
were actually used on the ground before this program expired. In 
Sulphur Springs, TX, which is a school district made up of nine 
schools, they wanted to do a safety assessment. They were able to make 
that safety assessment so they knew what they had to do to make their 
schools safer.
  When they did their study, they found they needed to replace older 
security equipment and technology, expand restricted access keyway 
systems, and placed classroom security levers on all doors, which 
allowed teachers to lock doors from the inside. Simple point. You may 
say: Oh, that is not expensive. Why do you need to spend money? It sure 
adds up when you truly want to secure a door and want to do it right. 
So if you have many doors, we can help them do these things. If they 
wanted to make sure they hardened their facility, that is what the 
money is for.
  There is a township in New Jersey that used funds to secure perimeter 
and playground areas by installing security gates at elementary and 
intermediate schools to create a safer learning environment. The new 
exterior fences defined school boundaries, making the school grounds 
safer for students. Interior gates were placed at schools, providing 
the ability to lock off specific areas of the schools during 
emergencies.
  Again, it is common sense. But when these schools were built, no one 
thought about this. Everything was open. It is similar to the Capitol 
when I came here. I am dating myself. A long time ago, you could go 
anywhere--no metal detectors, no fences, walk up the steps to the 
Capitol. We have lost a lot of that freedom. Our world is now to 
balance our freedom in the greatest country in the world with security. 
That is what we are trying to do with this.
  In Minnesota, we saw grants used to conduct security assessments and 
institute safety training classes. In Palmer High School in Colorado, 
they implemented a new surveillance, lockdown, and evacuation 
procedure. They doubled the number of doors that are operated by 
security cards, so it reduced the number of outside individuals able to 
gain building entry. It makes it harder for people to get in. It might 
be annoying for some parents, but I think right now people realize this 
is what is needed. It is this balance.
  In Florida, in Leon County, which is responsible for 50 schools, they 
had no central point of contact to coordinate communication across all 
school facilities. So they set up, with the funds from this program, a 
24-hour emergency operations center which has significantly reduced 
emergency response time. There is one point of contact.
  So what we have done in this bill is not a one-size-fits-all. We do 
not say in here: You have to do 10 things. We say: You come up with the 
plan. You send it to the Department of Justice. They look at the plan. 
They work with you to make it good. If they think it is worthwhile, we 
will fund it 50 percent.
  My final point. I want to show who supports school safety provisions 
in the bill: Fraternal Order of Police, Security Industry Association, 
National Sheriff's Association, National Association of School Resource 
Officers, International Association of Campus Law Enforcement 
Administrators.
  I ask unanimous consent to have the list printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


              Law Enforcement and Security Industry Groups

       Fraternal Order of Police, National Sheriffs Association, 
     National Association of School Resource Officers, 
     International Association of Campus Law Enforcement 
     Administrators, International Union of Police

[[Page 5301]]

     Associations, Security Industry Association, Texas State 
     University's Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training 
     Center (ALERRT).


                 Parents, Teachers, and Administrators

       National Parent Teacher Association, National School Board 
     Association, National Education Association, American 
     Association of School Administrators, National Association of 
     Elementary School Principals, National Association of 
     Secondary School Principals, National Rural Education 
     Advocacy Coalition, Association of Educational Service 
     Agencies, National Rural Education Association, Virginia Tech 
     Victims Family Outreach Foundation, American Association of 
     University Women.

  Mrs. BOXER. I have left out PTAs, National School Board Association, 
the NEA, and so on. We have a long list.
  Look, we will never be able to stand here and say we have solved 
every problem. We cannot. But we have to be able to say, we have to be 
able to know we did everything we could to reduce these tragedies. As I 
stand here I think, what will people say who do not vote for this and 
the next tragedy comes? What will they say? How can they look at their 
kids and their grandkids and say: I did not think it was right.
  We need to do commonsense things around here, not put ideology ahead 
of practicality. The slaughter of innocents must stop. I am going to 
support the Toomey-Manchin amendment. It closes the gun show and 
Internet loophole. It is not the perfect background check I would 
write. We know that. But it is good. It is solid. It moves forward. I 
am going to support Senator Leahy--his amendment which will outlaw the 
abusive practice of straw purchasing and gun trafficking. I will 
support Senator Feinstein's important amendment on assault weapons, to 
ban those weapons. She has worked so hard to make it fair and just and 
right. It would also take high-capacity clips off our streets.
  Senator Feinstein will have much more to say on assault weapons. I 
will withhold my remarks on that until that debate. Clearly, we have 
work to do. Clearly, we all carry from our State and in our hearts 
stories of this violence. Now we have a moment in time where we can 
actually act. I truly appreciate this opportunity.


                            ORDER FOR RECESS

  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
until 6 p.m. be for debate only; that at 6 p.m. the Senate recess 
subject to the call of the chair; that when the Senate reconvenes the 
majority leader be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Tribute to Margaret Thatcher

  Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I rise to honor the memory of Margaret 
Thatcher. When she passed, the United States lost a great ally and the 
world lost one of the greatest champions of liberty who has ever lived. 
I commend our colleague Senator Mitch McConnell for today offering a 
resolution that was approved by unanimous consent praising Thatcher's 
leadership. I commend all 100 Senators for consenting to and adopting 
that resolution.
  I would like to spend a brief amount of time talking about the 
incredible import of Margaret Thatcher's legacy. Margaret Thatcher 
became familiar to so many of us in the United States after she started 
winning elections. We think of her as the scourge of the Socialist 
policies that threatened to ruin Britain, as the resolute victor of the 
Falklands War, and, of course, as the ideological soulmate of President 
Ronald Reagan, who battled the Soviets.
  I have always been fond of her admonition that conservatives need to 
first ``win the argument,'' then we will win the vote; in other words, 
that we need to effectively communicate our ideas in order to prevail 
in elections, and elections will naturally follow as the consequence of 
doing so.
  I would like to talk about her days winning the argument, in 
particular, her seminal speech on January 19, 1976, entitled ``Britain 
Awake.'' At the time, it seemed to many that the conservative movement 
had failed. As James Callaghan succeeded Harold Wilson as the Labor 
Prime Minister, the Tories were in apparent disarray.
  Thatcher had wrested control of the party from former Prime Minister 
Edward Heath. Few gave her a chance at broader electoral success. 
Indeed, she said at the time she did not anticipate a female Prime 
Minister in her lifetime. I would be remiss if I did not note Margaret 
Thatcher was Britain's first and, to date, only female Prime Minister.
  Thatcher was a trailblazer, and her ascension wasn't simply a matter 
of breaking the glass ceiling as much as it was refusing to acknowledge 
its existence.
  Thatcher made the argument in that 1976 speech. She began by 
observing:

       The first duty of any Government is to safeguard its people 
     against external aggression. To guarantee the survival of our 
     way of life.

  She then addressed the Soviet menace, noting: ``They put guns before 
butter, while we put just about everything before guns.'' She bluntly 
and truthfully said the Soviets were ``a failure in human and economic 
terms.''
  She went on to tell the nation: ``The advance of Communist power 
threatens our whole way of life.''
  However, she stated:

       That advance is not irreversible, providing that we take 
     the necessary measures now. But the longer that we go on 
     running down our means of survival, the harder it will be to 
     catch up.

  These comments strikingly were echoed not long after by President 
Ronald Reagan, when he spoke so clearly and addressed the Soviet Union 
as an evil empire. He went on to observe that Marxism would end up 
discarded on the ash heap of history.
  At the time Margaret Thatcher's comments and Ronald Reagan's comments 
were derided by much of the intelligentsia, the media, the academy, and 
by many observers who knew far better than these seemingly naive souls. 
They were derided when President Reagan was asked: What is your 
philosophy of the Cold War? He responded: It is very simple. ``We win, 
they lose.'' This was seen as a simple Manichean view of the world and 
not realistic. Yet I would suggest their vision ushered in a far safer 
day for humanity.
  Margaret Thatcher laid out the stark decision before the nation.

       There are moments in our history when we have to make a 
     fundamental choice. This is one such moment--a moment where 
     our choice will determine the life or death of our kind of 
     society--and the future of our children. Let's ensure that 
     our children will have cause to rejoice that we did not 
     forsake their freedom.

  Margaret Thatcher won the argument. She took office during Britain's 
``winter of discontent'' when Britain had double-digit inflation, a top 
income tax rate of 83 percent, and rising unemployment. She 
revolutionized the economy with free market ideas in her 10 years of 
service which ushered in a new decade of prosperity.
  When she took office, the top income tax rate was 83 percent. It was 
cut to 60 percent and then to 40 percent. The middle tax rate was cut 
to 30 percent, and the lowest tax rate was eliminated altogether.
  When she took office, the top corporate tax rate was 53 percent. She 
cut it to 35 percent. The top capital gains tax rate was a stifling 75 
percent. Thatcher cut it to 30 percent. As a result of progrowth 
policies, unemployment fell from a high of 12 percent early in her 
tenure to 7.5 percent near the end. Public spending as a percentage of 
GDP fell from 45.1 percent of GDP to 39.4 percent of GDP. Inflation 
fell from almost 22 percent in 1979 to a low rate of 2.4 percent in 
1986.
  Perhaps the most telling tribute to Margaret Thatcher's leadership is 
3 days after she gave her ``Britain

[[Page 5302]]

Awake'' speech, the heroic fearless speech, she was dubbed ``The Iron 
Lady'' in the Communist news outlet, the Red Star.
  When your military enemies are describing you as formidable as ``The 
Iron Lady,'' it indicates you are winning the argument, that your 
message is being heard.
  Margaret Thatcher wasn't great just because she gave a good speech. 
She became great because she explained what was at stake. She 
articulated the meaning of economic freedom, freedom which allowed 
someone such as she, a shopkeeper's daughter, to rise to prosperity and 
leadership.
  She articulated the value of national pride and convinced the public 
of the virtue of standing for freedom and against tyranny and 
oppression.
  As Baroness Margaret Thatcher lays down the tortured freedom she 
spoke of in 1976, we can pay no higher tribute to her than to heed her 
arguments which are as valid today as they were then.
  It is unfortunate news accounts have indicated the U.S. Government 
will not be sending a member of the current administration to her 
funeral tomorrow. I hope those news accounts are mistaken.
  I hope President Obama, Vice President Biden or senior Members of the 
Cabinet make the decision to travel to Britain and to honor the 
incredible legacy of Baroness Margaret Thatcher. It was truly a 
providential blessing Margaret Thatcher served alongside President 
Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II. Together, the three of them did 
something which previously had been unimaginable.
  So many had opined the Cold War was unwinnable. We had to accept 
detente. We had to accept a condition in which the United States would 
constantly be in military conflict with the Soviet Union and our 
children would constantly be in fear of potential catastrophic nuclear 
war.
  Yet when Reagan, Thatcher, and Pope John Paul all ascended to 
leadership together, they had the vision to do something very few 
imagined was possible, to win the Cold War without firing a shot.
  Had that been suggested in the 1970s, this would have been diminished 
as crazy talk. Yet this is precisely what they did. Indeed, I would 
suggest in modern times there are few, if any, more deserving of the 
Nobel Peace Prize than those three leaders whose vision, courage, and 
collective leadership transformed the global debate and ended the Cold 
War which jeopardized the very fate of humanity. There have been no 
other leaders in modern time more deserving of recognition of a prize 
such as the Nobel Peace Prize than the three leaders who avoided war 
without firing a shot.
  Today, many of us are the children of the generation which fought and 
won the Cold War. We can gratefully rejoice that Margaret Thatcher and 
Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II did not forsake our freedom.
  As the children of those great leaders, it is now incumbent upon us, 
the next generation, to ensure freedom remains every bit as vital and 
real, not just for this generation but for our children and their 
children's children.
  Baroness Margaret Thatcher was an extraordinary leader and courageous 
leader, a woman of vision, a woman of principle, and a hero--a hero to 
the United States and to the world. All of us, in my judgment, are in 
her debt.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, let me begin by offering my deepest 
condolences on behalf of all the people of Maryland for the 20 students 
and 6 adults who lost their lives at the hands of a single shooter at 
Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT, on December 14, 2012. Some 
of the victims put themselves in harm's way in order to save the lives 
of children, true heroes.
  We have an obligation to the Sandy Hook families to seize this 
moment, set our political fears aside, and act responsibly. America has 
more than 3,300 victims of gun violence nationwide since the shooting 
at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, CT. Each heartbreaking event is 
shocking in its own right but also tears us apart, wondering what could 
we have done to prevent this from happening.
  I am proud the Senate has come together to engage in a real debate on 
what steps should be taken to minimize the risk of future shootings.
  The safety of our children and communities should never be put at 
risk by partisan gridlock. I agree with President Obama. We cannot wait 
for another tragedy to enact commonsense, reasonable gun safety 
measures, especially on weapons of war which have no legitimate 
civilian use.
  I am sympathetic to the interests of legitimate hunters and 
collectors, but we should reinstate the Federal ban on assault weapons. 
We should also prohibit high-capacity ammunition clips which hold more 
than 10 rounds at a time. We must take steps together to strengthen our 
mental health system, make our schools safer, crack down on gun 
traffickers, straw purchasers, and reduce the glorification of violence 
in our culture.
  The elimination of assault weapons in our community would have 
minimal or no impact on legitimate hunters or legitimate gun owners, 
but it could save lives. Listen to what law enforcement says. They 
don't think it is a fair fight when they have to go up against a 
criminal who has an assault weapon. The criminal has the advantage. We 
should support law enforcement and get assault weapons off the street.
  Listen to the accounts of the massacres we have seen when the 
perpetrators had these clips with so many rounds of ammunition. At 
Sandy Hook, they went into a classroom and used the number of bullets 
which were in that round to massacre children. This was tragic. The 
consequences could have been different if these large ammunition clips 
were not available. It could save lives.
  Dealing with mental health issues, dealing with school safety issues, 
dealing with straw purchase purchases, all that could keep these 
weapons out of the hands of those who should not have these weapons, 
the types of weapons which caused these massive killings.
  I support universal background checks for all firearms buyers as 
proposed by Senator Schumer. I congratulate my colleagues, Senators 
Manchin and Toomey, for coming to a bipartisan consensus on 
strengthening the current background check system.
  The background check proposals for the first time would require 
background checks for all gun sales in commercial settings, including 
at gun shows, Internet, and in classified ads. I believe this 
legislation will keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons, 
domestic abusers, and seriously mentally ill who have no business 
buying a gun. Studies have shown nearly half of all current gun sales 
are made by private sellers who are exempt from conducting background 
checks.
  It makes no sense that felons, fugitives, and others who are legally 
prohibited from having a gun can so easily use a loophole to buy a gun. 
Once again, the use of a universal background check will have no impact 
on the legitimate needs of people who are entitled to have weapons, but 
it could and would help us keep our communities safe by keeping weapons 
out of the hands of our criminals who have serious mental illness, 
domestic abusers. We need to stop their ability to easily obtain 
weapons as they do today.
  This legislation strengthens the National Instant Criminal Background 
Check System by incentivizing States to improve their reporting system 
and removing certain barriers to the submission of critical mental 
health records.
  This legislation also makes it easier for Active-Duty military 
personnel to buy guns in States where they live and are stationed for 
duty. It clarifies people traveling across State lines may carry guns 
which are locked and unloaded.

[[Page 5303]]

  It is heartbreaking to listen to stories of innocent lives cut 
cruelly short. The pain and grief of families and friends of these 
students and teachers is unimaginable. We know that teachers and the 
aides put their lives on the line to try to save children, and that 
first responders coming to the scene had the unbelievable task of not 
knowing what they would find. We send our prayers to all, but we have 
to do more than just say words. We are going to be judged by our deeds, 
and we have a chance to take action that will be helpful.
  This is a tragedy beyond words. I think President Obama said it best 
when he said that our hearts are broken. Congress needs to come 
together and take action to protect the safety of our children. We must 
do better. There have been too many episodes in which children's lives 
and others have been lost. We must figure out a way to prevent these 
types of tragedies.
  I am pleased the State of Maryland has recently taken action in the 
general assembly session that concluded last week. Governor O'Malley 
recommended legislation adopted by the Maryland General Assembly that 
bans assault weapons, limits the capacity of magazine clips from 20 to 
10, and increases restrictions on the possession of firearms and 
ammunition by convicted criminals and those with mental health 
disqualifications.
  The President was correct to take executive action to strengthen and 
enhance our gun safety laws, but now it is time for Congress to act. 
The victims of gun violence deserve to have Congress take an up-or-down 
vote on these issues.
  To my colleagues who have reservations about this legislation, let me 
cite the Heller decision. In June 2008 the Supreme Court decided the 
District of Columbia v. Heller. The Court held that the Second 
Amendment protects individuals rather than a collective right to 
possess a firearm. The Court also held the Second Amendment right is 
not unlimited, and it is not a right to keep and carry any weapon 
whatsoever in any manner and for any purpose. Justice Scalia wrote for 
the Court in that case, and I am going to quote Justice Scalia:

       . . . nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt 
     on the longstanding prohibitions on the possession of 
     firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding 
     the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools 
     and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and 
     qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

  Justice Scalia recognized Congress's right, and I would say 
obligation, to make sure those who are not qualified to own a firearm 
do not get that firearm. We have an obligation to make sure that 
background checks are effective so as to keep out of the hands of 
criminals and those who have serious mental health issues the 
opportunity to easily obtain a firearm, as they can in many States 
today.
  The legislation pending before the Senate is in full consistency with 
the Heller decision and the language of Justice Scalia's opinion for 
the Court. I know we can protect children while still protecting the 
constitutional rights of legitimate hunters and existing gun owners. We 
should take that action on behalf of the safety of our communities. It 
is our obligation to act.
  With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, we are gathered in the Senate in the 
somber shadow of the events in Boston at the marathon, and I guess I 
will start by conveying my sympathies to the individuals and their 
families who were killed or hurt in that terrible act. I share the 
determination of so many people that our law enforcement folks will 
indeed get to the bottom of this; that they will get the resources they 
need, and we will have answers and justice for the families who are 
affected.


                             Climate Change

  I rise today, though, on the subject I come to the floor every week 
we are in session to discuss, which is the need for this body to wake 
up to the reality of the clear scientific consensus that human activity 
is driving serious changes in our climate and oceans.
  For more than two decades the fossil fuel companies and certain 
rightwing extremists have cooked up a well-organized campaign to call 
into question the scientific evidence of climate change. The paid-for 
deniers then manufacture an interesting product--they manufacture 
uncertainty--so the polluters who are doing the paying can also keep 
polluting because a sufficient atmosphere of uncertainty has been 
created to inhibit progress.
  This is not a new strategy. We have seen this played before. 
Industries eager to drown out scientific evidence to maximize profit is 
not a new story. They questioned the merits of requiring seatbelts in 
automobiles, they questioned the toxic effects of lead exposure, and 
they questioned whether tobacco was really bad for people. Well, they 
were wrong then and they are wrong now about climate.
  Interestingly, they do not actually care. It is not their purpose to 
be accurate; they just want to create doubt, to sow enough of a 
question to stop progress. So these sophisticated campaigns are 
launched to give the public the false impression there actually is a 
real scientific debate over climate change. In the Senate, regrettably, 
some of my colleagues even promote this view.
  But let's be practical. Which is the more likely case: Are a handful 
of nonprofit environmental groups using their limited funding to pay 
off literally hundreds and hundreds of climate scientists in an 
internationally coordinated hoax to falsify complicated climate 
research? Really? Or is it more likely that fossil fuel corporations 
are using a slice of their immense profits to float front groups to 
protect their immense profits? Well, I think the answer to that 
question is obvious just from the logic, but we don't have to apply 
logic. We can follow the money and look at evidence.
  According to an analysis by the Checks and Balances Project, a self-
described pro-clean-energy government and industry watchdog group, from 
2006 to 2010, four sources of fossil fuel money--just four of them--
contributed more than $16 million to a group of conservative think 
tanks that go about the business of being publicly critical of climate 
science and of clean energy. Those four sources are the Charles G. Koch 
Foundation, the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, the Earhart 
Foundation, and oil giant ExxonMobil.
  On the receiving end is a lengthy roster of well-known and often-
cited right-ward leaning outfits. We will just talk about the top 10 in 
this set of remarks. They are the American Enterprise Institute, the 
Cato Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Heartland 
Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Hudson Institute, the Institute 
for Energy Research, the George C. Marshall Institute, the Manhattan 
Institute, and the Mercatus Center.
  Who is giving? Well, Charles Koch is the chairman and CEO of Koch 
Industries and the sixth richest person on the planet. Koch Industries 
is the second largest privately held company in the United States of 
America. Koch companies include the Koch Pipeline Company and Flint 
Hills Resources, which operates refineries with a combined crude oil 
processing capacity of more than 292 million barrels per year. That 
much oil accounts for 126 million metric tons of carbon pollution each 
year--as much as 35 coal-fired powerplants produce or 26 million cars.
  So to put it mildly, this fellow has some skin in the game. Between 
2006 and 2010, the Charles G. Koch Foundation gave almost $8 million to 
think tanks and institutes, including $7.6 million to the Mercatus 
Center, and $100,000 to the American Enterprise Institute.
  Charles Koch, along with his brother David, also established the 
Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation--those two have the same source--
and they direct that foundation's giving as well. This foundation 
provided almost $5 million to climate-denying think tanks and 
institutes, including over $1 million to the Cato Institute and more 
than $2 million to the Heritage Foundation.

[[Page 5304]]

  The Earhart Foundation was started by Henry Boyd Earhart, using funds 
from his oil business, White Star Refining Company--now a part of, you 
guessed it, ExxonMobil. The Earhart Foundation has donated almost $1.5 
million to climate denier groups, $370,000 to the American Enterprise 
Institute, $330,000 to the Cato Institute, and another $195,000 to the 
George C. Marshall Institute.
  That leaves us, of course, ExxonMobil itself, which is the second 
largest corporation in the world and often the most profitable. Ranked 
No. 1 among Fortune 500 companies, its total revenues reached nearly 
$\1/2\ trillion in 2012, and their profits were nearly $45 billion. 
ExxonMobil produces over 6 million barrels of oil per day at its 36 
refineries in 20 countries. So it is the world's largest oil producer. 
From 2006 to 2010, the petroleum giant gave institutes more than $2.3 
million: $1.2 million to the American Enterprise Institute, $220,000 to 
the Heritage Foundation, $160,000 for the Institute for Energy 
Research, and $115,000 for the Heartland Institute.
  So what did the Charles G. Koch Foundation and the Claude R. Lambe 
Charitable Foundation and the Earhart Foundation and ExxonMobil get for 
all of that so-called charitable giving? Well, the Checks and Balances 
Project found from 2007 to 2011 the 10 organizations I cited--the top 
10--were quoted or cited or had articles published over 1,000 times--
over 1,000 times--in 60 mainstream newspapers and print publications, 
and invariably they were promoting fossil fuels, undermining renewable 
energy, or attacking environmental policies.
  That is good investing--spend millions of dollars on a handful of 
think tanks to protect billions of dollars in profits. Really, it is a 
1,000-to-1 return. But here is the problem. The public is unaware of 
the connection usually. Only a handful of these attacks were 
accompanied by any explanation by the media the fossil fuel industry 
was involved in them.
  Here is one prime example: Last summer, when the Navy displayed its 
great green fleet, a carrier strike group that runs on a 50-50 blend of 
biodiesel and petroleum, Institute for Energy Research president Thomas 
Kyl wrote a column for U.S. News and World Report calling that 
initiative ``ridiculous'' and ``a costly and pointless exercise.'' 
Never mind for a moment our defense and intelligence communities have 
repeatedly warned of the threats posed by climate change to national 
security and international stability and of their own need to secure a 
reliable and secure fuel supply.
  What is misleading is that the U.S. News and World Report in 
publishing that article attributed the column simply thus, ``Thomas 
Pyle is the president of the Institute for Energy Research,'' with no 
mention the Institute for Energy Research is a front for big donors 
such as the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation and ExxonMobil.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 additional 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. The problem is that this is one example of a 
misleading practice that is the norm in the media. More than half of 
the time, media outlets do nothing more than state the name of the 
publishing organization, such as ``Thomas Pyle and the Institute for 
Energy Research,'' or they may add a functional description such as 
``think tank'' or ``nonpartisan group.''
  The instances where the publication described the basic ideology of 
the group--for example, as a ``free market'' or ``conservative'' think 
tank--amount to less than one-third. In all of the media outlets 
reviewed between 2007 and 2011, the financial ties between the authors 
and the fossil fuel industry were mentioned a mere 6 percent of the 
time. Ninety-four percent of the time, the fossil fuel industry funders 
got away with it.
  This chart shows some of the examples. The Washington Post ignored 
the financial connection 88 percent of the time, Politico ignored the 
financial connection 95 percent of the time, the Christian Science 
Monitor ignored it every time, USA TODAY ignored it 98 percent of the 
time, and the New York Times ignored it 90 percent of the time. So the 
scam of laundering money through independent-sounding organizations 
works. The media lets it work. The vast majority of scientists agree 
that global warming is occurring, but a recent Gallup Poll revealed 
that only 62 percent of Americans believe that the vast majority of 
scientists agree that global warming is occurring.
  Well over 90 percent of scientists agree that climate change is 
happening and that humans are the main cause. The only uncertainty is 
about how bad it is going to be, and the leading research predicts 
warmer air and seas, rising sea levels, stronger storms, and more 
acidic oceans.
  Most major players in the private sector actually get it. While the 
big fossil fuel polluters try to confuse the public in order to boost 
their bottom line and prolong their pollution, hundreds of leading 
corporations understand that climate change ultimately undermines our 
entire economy. Let me mention some of the examples: the Ford Motor 
Company; Coca-Cola; GE; Walmart; the insurance giant Munich Re; Alcoa, 
the great aluminum maker; Maersk; Proctor & Gamble; FedEx; and the so-
called BICEP group, which includes eBay, Intel, Starbucks, Adidas, and 
Nike.
  This notion that this is a hoax, that there is doubt, is belied by 
some of the most respected names in the private sector. Those companies 
join the National Academies, they join NASA, they join the U.S. 
Department of Defense, the Government Accountability Office, the 
American Public Health Association, and, yes, the United States 
Conference of Catholic Bishops, as well as a majority of Americans in 
understanding that it is time to wake up, to end this faux controversy 
that has been cooked up by the fossil fuel industry, and to do the work 
in Congress that needs to be done to protect Americans from the harms 
of carbon pollution.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________