[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11249-11253]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              GUN VIOLENCE

  Mr. MURPHY. Madam President, last week Target stores announced that 
they were going to initiate a new policy in their stores across the 
country. They were going to politely ask all of their consumers to 
refrain from bringing guns inside their stores.
  This is a picture of one of their customers bringing what appears to 
be a semiautomatic rifle into a store in order to buy Oreos. Their 
statement read like this:

       As you have likely seen in the media, there has been debate 
     about whether guests in communities that permit ``open 
     carry'' should be allowed to bring firearms into Target 
     stores. Our approach has always been to follow local laws, 
     and of course we will continue to do so, but starting today 
     we will also respectfully request that guests not bring 
     firearms to Target--even in communities where it is permitted 
     by law.
       We've listened carefully to the nuances of this debate and 
     respect the protected rights of everyone involved. . . . This 
     is a complicated issue, but it boils down to a simple belief: 
     Bringing firearms to Target creates an environment that is at 
     odds with the family-friendly shopping and work experience we 
     strive to create.

  I am thankful that Target has taken this position. I am hopeful that 
other retail stores across the country will follow suit. My only point 
of disagreement is that there is any nuance to this debate. My only 
point of contention is that there is anything complicated about whether 
this is appropriate for workers across retail stores and restaurants in 
the United States or the little kids who come in and shop there on a 
regular basis.
  Here is what the NRA had to say about this. The NRA released a 
statement that said:

       Let's not mince words, not only is it rare, it is downright 
     weird and certainly not a practical way to normally go about 
     your business while being prepared to defend yourself--
     talking about bringing firearms into stores--to those who are 
     not acquainted with the dubious practice of using public 
     displays of firearms as a means to draw attention to one's 
     self or one's cause, it can be down right scary. Using guns 
     really to draw attention to yourself in public not only 
     defies common sense, it shows a lack of consideration and 
     manners.

  That was the NRA's position for a couple of days, until a handful of 
NRA members got upset and started tearing up their membership cards, 
and then the NRA's top lobbyist apologized for that statement and 
effectively withdrew it. Luckily, Target some weeks later changed their 
policies.
  That is weird. That is scary. That is inappropriate. It is this 
policy which we have perpetuated by our inaction in this place that 
allows for the continued diffusion of weapons, many of which are 
military grade such as the one displayed here that is leading to the 
spiraling rates of mass gun violence across this country.
  We went for a stretch in January or February where there was a school 
shooting almost every other day that school was open. We expect now to 
pick up the newspaper and read about another mass slaughter somewhere 
in this country, and we wonder why it is happening. There are guys 
buying Oreos with an assault rifle strapped onto their shoulder, and 
that debate is nuanced and complicated about whether we should allow 
it.
  The gun lobby's position speaks to this mythology--that is 
charitable, a lie to the cynics--that the only way to stop a bad guy 
with a gun is a good guy with a gun. That is not what actually any of 
the data tells us. The data tells us if you have a gun in your home, 
you are much more likely to be the victim of a gunshot from that gun 
than you are to ever use that on an assailant. If you are a woman, for 
instance, you are five times more likely to die as a result

[[Page 11250]]

of domestic violence with a gun if it is in your home rather than if 
you are in a home without a gun. Health Affairs came out with a study 
of 50 States. A longitudinal study of experience related to rates of 
gun violence and rates of gun ownership found that for every percentage 
increase of gun ownership in a community, there is a percentage 
increase in gun violence.
  There have been 79 shootings in Walmarts in the last year--79 
shootings in Walmarts, of all places, in the last year. I am glad 
Target made the decision to take guns out of the workplace.
  Senator Blumenthal will speak after me. Senator Blumenthal and I sent 
a letter to Target asking them to make this change in policy, and I am 
glad they did.
  It appears we will have debate this week on a piece of legislation 
that will allow for individuals to bring more firearms onto public 
property throughout this country. It is not a debate about bringing 
firearms into Target stores; it is a debate about bringing firearms 
onto public lands.
  There is a perfectly legitimate debate to be had about bringing more 
legal guns onto public property, but there is a more important debate 
than that about taking illegal guns off of our city streets. If the 
Senate is going to spend a week debating a bill about gun policy, then 
we should be talking about getting rid of illegal guns. We should be 
talking about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. We should be 
talking about stopping the epidemic of gun violence across this 
country.
  These are the numbers: 31,000 people are killed by guns every year, 
2,600 people are killed by guns every month, and 86 people are killed 
by guns every day. If we are going to be talking on the floor of the 
Senate about guns this week, we should be talking about how to stop 
another Newtown, another Aurora, another bloody Chicago summer.
  The bill we are being asked to debate this week is a gun bill that 
does nothing to stop the scourge of gun violence across our country, 
and I for one cannot vote for it. I cannot vote for it because there 
are not only families still grieving in Newtown, but every single day 
there are families grieving across this country, such as the families 
associated with a young man by the name of Michael Mayfield in 
Baltimore, MD. Michael was killed earlier this year. He was an 
outstanding student. He was passionate about being a member of the 
Junior ROTC. He was a gifted baseball star in Baltimore. The paramedics 
found Michael shot in the head inside a vehicle in Northwest Baltimore 
and took him to a local hospital, where he died. He left his house at 
about 6 o'clock, and somebody walked up to him on the street, shot him 
four times in the head, and then fled on foot to an awaiting car up the 
street. He had been accepted to college, and he was due to start there 
this fall, but instead of going to his graduation, his family and 
friends--hundreds of them--went to his funeral.
  Paul Lee was killed some weeks later in another school shooting at 
Seattle Pacific University. A delusional young man started shooting and 
killed Paul, who was described as easygoing and energetic. A friend and 
dorm mate of his said he was adored by everyone and affectionate with 
everybody. He loved to dance. He was a member of Seattle Pacific 
University's hip-hop club, and his friend said he would walk around his 
dorm doing the robot. At a makeshift memorial to him outside where his 
funeral took place, one friend wrote, ``Keep dancing in heaven.''
  Kristjan Ndoj, a 15-year-old from Connecticut, was out on his bike 
one night. When the clock approached 8:45, two gunshots were fired from 
a wooded area near his house and struck Kristjan in the head and leg, 
dropping him onto the driveway at Agawam Trail. He died 5 days later. 
Police say the shooting may have involved trouble over a teenage girl.
  The casualness of violence in this country and the idea that a 
dispute over a teenage girl would result in the death of a 15-year-old 
is directly connected to our casualness about guns in this country. If 
we are so casual as to think someone needs to be armed when they go to 
buy Oreos at a Target, it stands to reason that some kids may think 
they can have a casualness about settling disputes with guns as well.
  I will not be voting for cloture today because we are long overdue to 
make a statement in the Senate about the tens of thousands of deaths 
happening due to guns all across this country. Everyone has a role to 
play in trying to stem this epidemic of violence. Target has a role to 
play, and they stepped up last week by taking guns out of their stores. 
Our hospitals and our mental health professionals have a role to play. 
This is not just about the number of guns out in our communities, this 
is also about getting resources to very troubled kids. This Congress 
has a role to play as well. Our role is to have a debate about how we 
can take guns out of the hands of criminals, take military-style 
assault weapons off the streets, and give real resources to people who 
want to help these troubled individuals. That is the debate we should 
be having on the floor of the Senate this week if we really want to 
honor all of the voices of these victims.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I wish to thank my colleague Senator 
Murphy. He is my friend and partner on so many different issues but 
most especially on measures to stop gun violence in this country--
commonsense, sensible measures he has championed so ably, and I have 
been very proud to work with him as a partner in spearheading this 
issue as well.
  I wish to explain my reasons that I am unable to vote for the bill we 
are considering today, the bill that is presented for cloture on the 
motion to proceed this afternoon. People in the United States have a 
Second Amendment right to possess and use firearms. It is guaranteed by 
the Constitution. And there are legitimate ways people can use firearms 
in this country--recreational and sometimes commercial. Those rights 
are guaranteed by the Constitution, and this measure, arguably, is in 
service of those rights.
  I cannot vote for a measure which makes owning or possessing or using 
guns more readily or easily useable when we have failed to act, and we 
have failed to act, on commonsense, sensible measures that will stop 
gun violence.
  I voted to achieve cloture on a measure very similar to this one 
before Sandy Hook and before the Senate failed to produce the necessary 
60 votes which were required to pass commonsense gun violence 
legislation a year ago April.
  I can see the legitimate reasons to vote for the Sportsmen's Bill and 
to support cloture but not when this body has failed in its fundamental 
obligation to make America safer and to rid it of gun violence. We have 
an obligation to take first things first and protect our children and 
adopt the kinds of commonsense measures--background checks, mental 
health initiatives, school safety, and a ban on illegal trafficking--
that are easily within reach and would be passed by a majority of this 
body if presented for another vote and if a majority of Members voting 
was sufficient rather than the 60 votes that is now our threshold.
  I am reminded today of a victim of gun violence over this very 
weekend in the early morning of Sunday. A young woman in Bridgeport was 
gunned down by her ex-boyfriend, raging into her mother's house. First 
he shot her mother's boyfriend and then turned his gun on her because 
she had the audacity to end their relationship.
  Her story puts a face on the reason I have offered a measure named 
after Lori Jackson, another victim of gun violence, to impose 
commonsense steps to take guns away from the people who are under 
temporary restraining orders as well as permanent restraining orders. 
Whether that kind of measure would have worked in this case is 
irrelevant. Her death was unnecessary, preventable, tragic, and painful 
to her family, not to mention her mom, who was in the house at the time 
she was gunned down and murdered.
  Her death occurred within 75 minutes of another death in Bridgeport. 
On the

[[Page 11251]]

east side, Abraham ``A.B.'' Davidson, a 23-year-old young man, was 
sitting on his house porch on Barnum Avenue in Bridgeport--gunned down.
  In the case of Kiromy Fontanez--the young woman who was shot by her 
ex-boyfriend--the shooter, Jose Santiago, was apprehended almost 
immediately and gave a confession. According to Bridgeport police, the 
case is closed. The chief of the Bridgeport police, Chief Gaudett, had 
this to say:

       Three separate incidents, six people shot, two people dead. 
     I am very proud of the work that all of our officers do every 
     day, but especially last night. It was a really trying night 
     last night.

  Chief Gaudett committed himself to begin a renewed effort against 
domestic violence inspired by the death of this young woman, Kiromy 
Fontanez.
  In Connecticut we have already exceeded the number of domestic 
violence deaths that occurred in all of last year. Her death was the 
10th in 2014 alone. Domestic violence takes a terrible, awful, 
unacceptable toll in lives and injuries, heartbreak and pain, and it is 
so avoidable and unnecessary.
  We need to do more about domestic violence, but, as my colleague 
Senator Murphy has commented so well, the chances of death as a result 
of domestic violence are increased by five times when there is a gun in 
the house. Guns and domestic violence are a dangerous toxic mix, and 
that is the reason for our legislation, the Lori Jackson Domestic 
Violence Survivor Protection Act. The legislation we have offered takes 
away guns, stops purchases and ownership of guns when there are 
restraining orders, when there is an objective reason to think there 
will be this kind of threat of violence and rage and wrath.
  The memory of these two people--who died just yesterday morning in 
the early hours of the Sunday following Independence Day--should focus 
our attention again on what is important, what should be our priority, 
what should be our first steps when it comes to guns. That is to make 
America safer.
  Four months after the brutal murders in Sandy Hook, this body said no 
to the grieving Newtown families, to the people of Connecticut, and to 
the vast majority of American people who continue to support 
commonsense measures such as background checks. This body voted to 
prevent gun violence legislation from getting a final vote.
  Today we will vote on cloture on the motion to proceed to the 
sportsmen's bill. The fact that we are now considering this legislation 
to expand recreational shooting on Federal lands without addressing the 
scourge of gun violence is a stark reminder of the Congress's misplaced 
priorities and unfulfilled obligations.
  I sympathize with what my great colleague Senator Hagan is trying to 
do. If the legislation we are considering were part of a broader 
national discussion and conversation about who should possess guns and 
how we should keep them out of the hands of dangerous people--criminals 
and mentally troubled people who are dangerous to themselves or 
others--it would be a different debate on the floor and the 
considerations for me would be different on this vote.
  I spent last week going from town to town in Connecticut listening to 
constituents who asked me, What are you doing in Washington? What I 
heard a lot was, What are you doing in Washington to stop gun violence? 
When will you bring back the measures to stop gun violence that are the 
legacy and the lesson of Sandy Hook--a tragedy that still causes so 
much pain to so many people, thinking of those families, the 20 
beautiful children and brave educators whose lives were lost that day. 
I cannot go back to Connecticut and tell those people who asked me 
about what we are doing about guns in America that what we have done is 
made it easier for Americans to shoot at targets, made it easier for 
big game trophy hunters to bring their polar bear rugs back from 
Canadian hunting grounds, and reduced regulations that govern shell 
cases. That is not my idea of where our priorities should be.
  First things first. Let's stop gun violence. Let's at least take 
steps to reduce its horrific toll of death and injury, its cost in 
dollars. Let's try to find that bipartisan ground on reducing domestic 
violence or reaching out to people who need mental health treatment, 
and let's find common ground on making America safer. That common 
ground serves our best instincts--what makes our Nation the greatest 
Nation in the history of the world, a nation whose independence we 
celebrated this weekend, with pride and joy, even as the terrible toll 
of gun violence continued in yesterday's early morning, over the 
weekend throughout America, where tens of thousands of deaths have 
followed the tragic, horrific, unspeakable tragedy of Sandy Hook.
  I will vote against this legislation, against invoking cloture, with 
sadness and regret that that obligation and promise is as yet 
unfulfilled.
  Thank you. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.


                       Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act

  Mrs. HAGAN. Madam President, in a few minutes the Senate will vote on 
whether to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the Bipartisan 
Sportsmen's Act of 2014, a bill I introduced earlier this year with my 
friend and colleague from Alaska, Senator Murkowski.
  I am proud that by working alongside our colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle, we have crafted a package of 12 provisions that have broad 
bipartisan support. I will be back on the floor at a later time to give 
a much more thorough, open, and indepth presentation on our bill, but I 
wish to take a couple of minutes to highlight a couple of the key 
provisions.
  One is to ensure that future generations do have an opportunity to 
enjoy our great outdoors as we do today. The Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act 
reauthorizes several landmark conservation programs, including the 
North American Wetlands Conservation Act, the Federal Land Transaction 
Facilitation Act, and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.
  Our bill also includes regulatory reforms and enhancements that will 
benefit sportsmen and women across our country. For example, States 
will be able to allocate a greater portion of the Federal Pittman-
Robertson funding to create and maintain shooting ranges on public 
land. This is important because we are currently facing a shortage of 
public shooting ranges across the country.
  We will also enable hunters to purchase an electronic duck stamp. I 
can personally vouch for the benefits of this provision. Our son-in-law 
came to visit one year. My husband planned to take him duck hunting 
toward the end of the season. Unfortunately, three different places had 
sold out of duck stamps. When my husband buys his duck stamp for the 
season, he actually purchases extra ones, just in case family or 
friends come to visit during duck season. Senator Wicker's electronic 
duck stamp provision will allow my husband and other hunters to 
purchase duck stamps online--this is 2014--instead of traveling from 
post office to post office in search of a duck stamp.
  The Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act will also help improve access for 
hunting and fishing on public lands and will require 1.5 percent, or 
$10 million, of annual Land and Water Conservation Fund money to be 
used to improve the access on our public lands.
  It is important to note that we accomplish all of this without adding 
anything to the deficit. In fact, this act actually reduces the deficit 
by $5 million over the next 10 years.
  I believe we have assembled a strong bill that is going to benefit 
the anglers, the outdoor recreation enthusiasts, and the hunters in 
North Carolina and nationwide. I am proud to say this bipartisan act 
has 45 cosponsors--18 Democrats, 26 Republicans, and one Independent. 
We have cosponsors of all ideological backgrounds from every region of 
the country.
  The list of organizations supporting our bill is also long and 
diverse. Over 40 organizations have endorsed the Bipartisan Sportsmen's 
Act, ranging from the National Shooting Sports Foundation to the 
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, to Ducks Unlimited.

[[Page 11252]]

  Outdoor recreation activities are part of the fabric of so many 
States, including North Carolina. From the Great Smoky Mountains 
National Park in the west to the Cape Hatteras National Seashore in the 
east, North Carolinians are passionate about the outdoors. Hunting, 
fishing, and hiking are a way of life, and many of these traditions 
have been handed down through my own family.
  I am glad the Senate will debate the Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act. In 
putting our bill together, Senator Murkowski and I tried to pull the 
best ideas from Members of both of our parties. However, I do recognize 
that Members on both sides of the aisle have ideas for how to 
strengthen this bill. It is my hope we can take up, debate, and vote on 
sportsmen's-related amendments this week. I encourage my colleagues who 
have amendments to file them and come to the floor to discuss them.
  In closing, this Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act of 2014 is a balanced 
bipartisan plan that is endorsed by 40 stakeholders, and it is fiscally 
responsible. I urge my colleagues to vote to invoke cloture on the 
motion to proceed to the bill so we can start debating steps we can 
take to benefit the more than 90 million sportsmen and women across the 
country.
  Thank you. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                         Reforming Foster Care

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, for many years I have been an advocate 
for reforming the foster care system and making sure the government is 
doing the best it can to protect and care for those who are abused, 
neglected, and particularly when they are removed from their families. 
That is why Senator Landrieu of Louisiana and I started the Senate 
Caucus on Foster Youth. We wanted a forum to discuss policies and 
practices and to learn more about the challenges foster young people 
face. We want to make a difference in the lives of vulnerable young 
people who don't have a permanent place to call home.
  The caucus cannot function without the input and the insight from 
foster young people. These young people are the experts on the foster 
care system. They have been through it. They know the challenges. They 
tell us in this caucus what works and what needs to change. They share 
the experiences and provide us with real-world stories about how our 
policies truly affect them.
  I wish to highlight the story of one particular person whom I have 
had the privilege of getting to know. Amnoni Myers is an intern in my 
office this summer. She is participating in the Congressional Coalition 
on Adoption Institute's Foster Youth Internship Program. I wish to tell 
her story because it is important not to forget there are young people 
in this country such as Amnoni who don't have a permanent family or a 
place to call home. Despite her circumstances, Amnoni has risen up and 
made a better life for herself. So allow me to share her story.
  Amnoni Myers, a native of Boston, became a ward of the State on the 
day she was born. She was abandoned at birth. When she was 6 months 
old, Amnoni's great aunt learned of Amnoni and her two other siblings 
and decided to take care of them by taking them into her home. She 
lived in her great aunt's care for 10 years. Even though she had a 
better family environment, life still presented her with many 
challenges. Amnoni struggled with rejection and trauma at a very young 
age, resulting from different types of abuse.
  At the age of 10, Amnoni was reunited with her biological mother 
because the State granted her temporary custody. Amnoni thought her 
life was finally secure. Wouldn't we think so, being at home with our 
birth mother? Her mother promised to care for her and never give her up 
again. Unfortunately, after 2 short years, Amnoni's mother voluntarily 
returned her and her siblings back to the State.
  So at the age of 12, Amnoni was separated from her siblings and 
placed with foster families until the age of 18. Although Amnoni and 
her brother were placed together for a short period of time, they were 
later separated as Amnoni moved around in the system. During her time 
in foster care, she was moved several times, never experiencing 
permanency or stability. That is one of the things I learned through 
the work of this caucus; that when we talk to people who are in foster 
care, what do they want? They want permanency. They want a real mom and 
dad, and they would like to have a place to call home.
  To Amnoni, foster parents seemed more interested in cash benefits for 
parenting rather than human investment. She experienced emotional and 
verbal abuse in places she stayed. She didn't know unconditional love. 
Her foster families didn't take the time to manage her trauma but 
instead added to it.
  One of the most difficult experiences Amnoni faced was aging out of 
the foster care system, and aging out issues with these young people is 
exactly why Senator Landrieu and I established the caucus I have 
already spoken about.
  During the summer, while still in care, Amnoni entered an intense 
college preparation program that would determine if she was adequately 
prepared to enroll in a postsecondary institution. Already anxious 
about the future of her success and if she would be able to handle the 
workload of the program, she received a phone call from her social 
worker that afternoon. The bad news came that she was aging out. She 
was told that her foster mother was no longer being paid for Amnoni's 
bed. Because the money was running out for her foster parents, Amnoni 
was forced to leave the home immediately.
  The shock and devastation of those words crushed Amnoni. She lived in 
that home with that family for 3 years. She considered it a long-term 
living situation. Amnoni returned to find her belongings packed in 
garbage bags waiting for her at the door. That is a story our caucus 
often hears.
  Amnoni aged out of the system in a way no person should have to 
experience. She left a place she considered home, not knowing what her 
future would hold. She was on her own, shoved into independence with no 
family, support or a place to call home.
  Amnoni's aging-out experience left her feeling shattered and 
confused. She felt betrayed by both her foster mother, who claimed to 
love her, and the child welfare system--in other words, the State she 
lived in--that claimed to protect her. While this experience quickly 
taught Amnoni the value of independence, she would have preferred to 
have a smoother transition into that independence.
  When Amnoni left her so-called home at age 18, she was taken in by a 
former mentor and her family. She resided there for 5 years. Living 
there was a reminder that love, family, and support do exist.
  In 2008 Amnoni learned she had post-traumatic stress disorder, 
depression, and anxiety. These diagnoses led her to take a break from 
school to gain control over these disruptions. Amnoni entered into a 
Christian residential program, Mercy Ministries, where she was able to 
gain a better understanding of herself. This experience motivated her 
to attend Gordon College, a Christian institution outside of Boston.
  Today she is working in my office, sitting in this Chamber with me, 
learning how government works. She is becoming an advocate for foster 
youth who face the same experiences she faced.
  Despite the challenges, Amnoni feels very fortunate. She has been 
able to attend college, graduate this year, and hopes to pursue a 
meaningful career. Knowing that many children and youth do not have 
adequate support systems in their life to help them along their life 
journey, Amnoni pursued an education in social work and sociology.
  Many people who have gone through similar experiences resort to other 
paths because of the lack of support and services. Many foster children 
age out of the system without supportive services in place to ensure 
healthier lives. Thankfully, Amnoni has had a network of support to 
guide and direct her through difficult times.
  Amnoni's experience has fueled her passion to advocate for those who 
do

[[Page 11253]]

not have a voice to fight for themselves. As Amnoni looks back on her 
life, she realizes her past does not have to determine her future. She 
is on her way to becoming a monumental figure for those who have 
suffered, giving youth across the country a voice and making a 
difference in this world.
  I appreciate her willingness to let me share her story. It is so 
typical of so much that we hear in the caucus that Senator Landrieu and 
I formed. This young girl is a very brave woman. She knows we can learn 
from her. We will learn from her. We must do right by her and others in 
the foster care system.
  I hope my colleagues have a chance to say hello to Amnoni while she 
is here in Washington, DC, and take a minute to commend her for being 
an advocate for other youth.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I ask to speak on the nomination that is 
pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.

                          ____________________