Richard Blumenthal

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, after consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 39 and 41; that there be 30 minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nominations in the order listed; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nominations; that any related statements be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 31, S. 622.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I do not.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Again, Mr. President, I accept and sympathize with the goals of the resolution offered by my friend from Utah. What I am suggesting is a resolution that includes those criminals who may be posing as health care practitioners in one field of practice but extends the condemnation to all areas of practice. I hope Senator Lee, my friend from Utah, will share my outrage at reprehensible and illegal actions that occur, unfortunately and tragically, in other areas of practice. Let me mention a few. We ought to speak about the tragedy at the Pennsylvania clinic, where these incidents occurred, but we also should talk about the Oklahoma dentist who exposed as many as 7,000 patients to HIV and hepatitis B and C through unsanitary practices. Thousands of his patients are being tested to see if they have been infected. So far 60 of his patients have tested positive for these viruses. That is 60 people who trusted their dentist, a health care provider in a position of trust and responsibility, relying on him to respect and care for them safely and responsibly, and, instead they are now facing potentially life- threatening diseases that are as abhorrent and despicable in the lack of responsibility and care as what happened in Pennsylvania. We ought to talk about that incident with the same outrage that we talk about what happened, allegedly, in Pennsylvania. We ought to speak about the health care practitioners at the Endoscopy Center of Southern Nevada who exposed 40,000 patients to hepatitis C through unsanitary practices. These unsanitary practices went on for years, and that is why this clinic may have hurt as many as 40,000 people. We are talking about 40,000 people, again, exposed to unnecessary danger because of the lack of trust and responsibility on the part of their health care provider. We also ought to talk about the nursing director at Kern Valley nursing home in California who inappropriately medicated patients using antipsychotic drugs for her own convenience, resulting in the death of at least one patient. We should be talking about the compounding pharmacies in Massachusetts and elsewhere in this country that provided products that killed and harmed thousands of people. These incidents, as alleged, are willful violations of law, violations of human dignity and decency, that ought to shock the conscience of the Nation every bit to its core as much as the alleged misconduct and potential criminal activity in Pennsylvania. These standards of care--or more appropriately and correctly, the violation of them--are simply unacceptable and intolerable, which is why my resolution would take as common ground the alleged Pennsylvania misconduct and include many other instances where standards of care-- basic standards of decency and trust--are violated. I ask my friend from Utah to join me in espousing a resolution that establishes this kind of common ground. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I wish to offer the resolution that I and Senator Boxer, who is a long-time champion of better health care for the citizens of our country, and Senator Shaheen, expressing the sense of the Senate that these practices will not be tolerated in any setting, regardless of personal beliefs about the type of health care being offered. This resolution is broader than the resolution of the Senator from Utah. I understand and sympathize with the basic objectives which, as I understand it, are to improve health care generally and to make sure the kinds of abuses being prosecuted in Philadelphia will not occur anywhere in this country. I offer my resolution calling on the Senate to condemn such practices in all health care settings, be they clinics or hospitals, dental offices, anywhere in this country. They may be a small fraction and, hopefully, are a very small fraction, of the kinds of cases we would want to condemn. But we should condemn them wherever they occur, not just in one instance, not just singling out one case, but everywhere, anytime. I might add as a former U.S. attorney that while this case is before the jury, I think we need to be very careful about what we say in a public forum as respected as this one about the facts of that case and about potentially prejudging the result. My understanding is the jury has not yet come back. If the allegations are true--if the jury concludes they have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt--then the punishment should certainly be sufficiently severe and serious to fit those circumstances and well deserving of our condemnation. But equally deserving of our condemnation are any circumstances where health care patients are put in danger, where safety is in peril, where the consequences do damage, or threaten damage, to the recipients of health care. Whatever the kind of health care, whatever we may think of it personally in terms of the merits and the type of care provided, we ought to condemn it, and that is the purpose and sense of the resolution I am offering. So if I may, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of a Senate resolution expressing the sense of the Senate regarding all incidents of abusive, unsanitary, or illegal health care practices be condemned--the text is at the desk; and I ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Reserving the right to object, I will have a request with another resolution momentarily, but I understand the resolution of my friend from Utah. I believe this problem is broader than the one cited in his resolution. In fact, looking to the conduct of the Philadelphia instance, I would prosecute that case to the fullest extent of the law. I think the conduct--or, more correctly, misconduct--in that instance was absolutely despicable and abhorrent. I am concerned about patient safety in a variety of areas. They may be a small fraction of the total number of health care cases in this country, but anytime, anywhere patients are endangered or threatened by criminal conduct or malpractice, people should be prosecuted and disciplined to the full extent of the law. These cases shock and horrify our sense of decency and we understand the responsibility of health care practitioners anywhere, anytime. My resolution, which I intend to offer after the Senator from Utah concludes his, will call upon our colleagues to condemn these actions in all health care settings, whether clinics, hospitals, nursing homes, or dental offices across the country. So with that, I object.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on April 18, 2013, at 10 a.m., in SC-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct executive business meeting.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, April 18, 2013, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 18, 2013, at 9:45 a.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 18, 2013, at 10 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 18, 2013.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 18, 2013, at 9:30 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled, ``National Security and Foreign Policy Priorities in the FY 2014 International Affairs Budget.''

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Hearing for Secretary of Labor-Designate Thomas E. Perez'' on April 18, 2013, at 10 a.m., in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on April 18, 2013, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 18, 2013, at 10 a.m.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 18, 2013, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Oversight of Federal Housing Finance Agency: Evaluating FHFA as Regulator and Conservator.''

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am here today with sadness and anger after one of the saddest and most troubling days in my career in public service. Yesterday the Senate turned its back on the families of Newtown--some of them sitting in this very gallery, along with victims of other shootings. The first words I heard when Vice President Biden banged the gavel to end the vote on the background check bill yesterday were, ``Shame on you.'' ``Shame on you'' were the words of a rightfully angry mother of a Virginia Tech student who was shot in the head twice 6 years ago this week. This heartbroken mother had the courage and the fortitude to say the words that all of us who have been fighting for commonsense laws to reduce gun violence felt at that moment. Shame on us. Shame on the Senate. It was, in fact, a shameful day for this Nation and for our democracy. The hardest part of that day was to explain to the loved ones who lost children, spouses, family members in Newtown that day how 90 percent of the American people--the majority of gun owners and even NRA members--and 54 Members of the Senate could favor a proposal that failed to become law. How could that be in a democracy? Part of the answer relates to the filibuster, which is a now proven despicable antidemocratic feature of this body. I have voted several times to, in effect, eliminate it, and yesterday's vote was a nail in the coffin of the filibuster because the American people simply will not stand for a result that so typifies an antidemocratic result but, even more, an antidemocratic process. The filibuster fight is for another day. The fight today is to continue this effort against gun violence. I will pledge to every Member of this body, every person in Connecticut, and anyone who is engaged in this fight, that I will continue with redoubled determination. When I tried to explain to one of the family members yesterday how this process could be so broken and reach such an intolerable result, I said: We are not done. And she said to me: We are not even close to done. So resolute and resilient are these families that they should inspire us and uplift us in their determination to continue this work for the sake of the loved ones they lost and to keep faith with the 3,400 innocent people who have perished as a result of gun violence since December 14 and the thousands who perished before. It is not just our opportunity in the Senate--one of the great institutions in the history of the world--but our obligation, as public officials and as Members of a body that holds a trust for democracy and for safety, to provide better security for our people and our children. The mother of that Virginia Tech student was sitting in the same gallery with those members of Newtown, CT, who lost 20 precious, beautiful children and six brave, great educators. They were keeping vigil as the Senate turned its back on them. Despite their profound and harrowing loss, those parents, husbands and wives, sons and daughters, sisters and brothers, grandmothers and grandfathers have kept faith. They have spent the last 4 months tirelessly and relentlessly advocating for changes and reforms in our gun laws so that the loss they suffered will not have been in vain. Still, the Senate failed in its responsibility in turning its back on them. I do not want to relive December 14 when I went to Sandy Hook and heard and saw the grief and pain of those parents and loved ones as they emerged from the firehouse. That unspeakable and unimaginable horror I do not want to see again. Yesterday was demoralizing and discouraging but not defeating because, ultimately, this reform will be delayed but not denied. The massacre of 20 innocent children and their teachers will bring us, ultimately, to our senses, but so will the violence, carnage, and killing since then. In the words of Mark Barden, whose son Daniel is in this picture: We are not defeated. We are here now. We will always be here because we have no other choice. The ``Connecticut effect'' is not going away. The Bardens are not going away, nor are any of the Newtown families. The advocates of sensible, commonsense gun reform are not going away. We are here to stay. For Mark and Jackie Barden and all of the other families from Newtown and every other victim of gun violence in this country, there is no going back. There is no turning back the page. We must simply move on to the next issue. As the bicycle team who came from Newtown to Washington, Team 26, said, we must go on pedaling. The only way to keep a bicycle upright is to move forward. That is a simple lesson of life the families of Newtown learned in their horrific tragedy. I will continue to stand with them and all of the other victims of gun violence to work, to fight another day. I say to every one of my colleagues, my friends who sided with the proponents of fear, do not underestimate the power of the Newtown families and the other victims of gun violence. They are not going away. They will help to hold accountable and answerable to the people of America the actions that were taken here, the votes that were cast. Votes have consequences, just as elections do. The people of America will remember. Our job now is to raise awareness, spread the rage that we feel, raise that rage, and organize and enable and empower citizens to be heard and heeded by this body, whether in the next election or before then. My hope is that it will be before then because we must act before the next election. That action is an opportunity, a historic moment we must seize. Not everyone in this body turned their back on the victims of Newtown or on this cause yesterday. There were genuine profiles in courage on this floor, in this body: first and foremost, Senator Manchin, who led the fight on background checks and forged a compromise that should have won the day, and Republicans who chose to buck their own leadership and follow their hearts and consciences--Senators McCain, Collins, Kirk, and Toomey. The American people will thank you. There are Democrats who took some tough votes--tough votes particularly for their States. I thank Senators Hagan, Casey, Landrieu, Heinrich, Mark and Tom Udall, Jon Tester, and Senator Shaheen. These Senators put saving lives above the politics of the moment. They showed true leadership in the face of lies and fearmongering. They deserve our thanks and praise. I wish to pay tribute to the Senators who have led this effort over many years: Senators Feinstein, Lautenberg, Schumer, and Durbin. I thank my colleague Chris Murphy for his leadership and his courage. Senators Feinstein, Lautenberg, Schumer, and Durbin have been a tireless foursome on behalf of this fight. They have been dogged and determined. No amount of NRA deception or dishonesty has deterred them or stopped them. I thank the majority leader, Harry Reid, for his courage. He has persevered in seeking a path forward on this legislation in the face of some of the most difficult political and procedural obstacles. He has been as passionate and persevering in this cause as any one of the advocates in these last weeks. If you want to know the definition of ``resilient,'' look up ``Frank Lautenberg'' in the dictionary because there he was, right here yesterday, after weeks of debilitating illness, with his wife Bonnie in the gallery. She cheered him on, and so did we. Nothing was going to keep him from voting on the gun control bills he had championed for a lifetime. In moving forward, let's take heart and inspiration from the families of Newtown, who have been resolute and resilient at every turn, from the continued strength of the advocates, from the courage of our colleagues who stood strong yesterday, and from the American people. I have said, along with others, that at the end of the day the American people would be the ones to make a difference. Their rage and disbelief is palpable. They will be there for Daniel Barden. He is only one among thousands. We have seen their pictures. They have been on display on this floor. Their names have been recited and their memories revived. Yesterday the Senate said no to America, but the people of America will not take no for an answer. As Martin Luther King said, ``The arc of history is long, but it bends towards justice.'' We are on the right side of history, which will eventually vindicate this cause. I look forward to being here, if not within days, at least in the very near future when we take another vote and we stand 60 or more strong to make sure that Daniel Barden's memory is not in vain and that his brave parents are also vindicated in their trust in us. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, we have listened to the families of Newtown talk about high-capacity magazines. Bill Sherlach, for example, who was the husband of Mary Sherlach--we have seen her picture here--had this to say about high-capacity magazines: It's just simple arithmetic. If you have to change magazines 15 times instead of five times, you have three times as many incidents as where something could jam. Something could be bobbled. You just increase the time for intervention. You increase the timeframe where kids can get out. And there's 11 kids out there today that are still running around on the playground pretty much now at lunchtime. And those 11 kids he talks about are alive because the shooter needed to change magazines. Another Sandy Hook family member, Nicole Hockley, the mother of Dylan Hockley, said the following: We looked at the search warrants . . . and know that [the shooter] left the smaller capacity magazines at home, that was a choice the shooter made. He knew that the larger capacity magazine clips were more lethal. David Wheeler, the father of Benjamin Andrew Wheeler, said the following: The more bullets you can get out the end of that gun in the least amount of time, that is the single area that I believe affects lethality. And the size of the magazine placed in that weapon is a direct contributor to that--a direct contributor to that factor. There is a place for 30-round magazines, in the military, on the battlefield. The families of Newtown have spoken clearly and powerfully, but the facts of other shootings support the ban on high-capacity magazines again and again. In Tucson, AZ, for example, Jared Loughner emptied a 33-round magazine in 19 seconds, killing 6 and injuring 13 before stopping to replace his magazine. When he went to reload, a bystander tackled him. Others joined in, subduing and disarming him. Loughner was stopped because he had to pause to reload. His 13th round killed 9- year-old Christina-Taylor Green. If Loughner had been limited to a magazine with 10 rounds, that little girl very likely would still be alive today. If Lanza had been limited to a 10-round magazine, beautiful girls and boys might well be alive today. Newtown and Tucson are only two instances in which a shooter was stopped when he had to reload or when his firearm ran out of ammunition. In Queens, NY, in 1993, Colin Ferguson boarded the Long Island Railroad with a 9mm pistol with a 15-round magazine. He opened fire, killing 6 and injuring 19 others in 3 minutes. When he went to load another magazine, he was tackled and disarmed. In Chapel Hill, NC, in 1995, Wendell Williamson walked the streets of Chapel Hill with an M-1 rifle. He opened fire, killing two. When he paused to reload, a bartender tackled him and disarmed him. In Springfield, OR, in 1998, Kip Kinkel went to his high school with several firearms and 1,127 rounds of ammunition. He opened fire, shooting 50 rounds, killing 2 students and injuring 24 more. As his firearm ran out of ammunition and he began to reload, several students tackled him and restrained him until the police arrived. There are many others. In fact, half of the mass killings since 1982 involved high-capacity magazines. Half of all those mass slaughters were enabled by high-capacity magazines. Facts are stubborn things, as Ronald Reagan used to say. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not to his own facts, as Daniel Moynihan reminded this Chamber many times. The most tragic stories for me involve law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty. In Connecticut they include Officer Robert Fumiatti of the New Haven Police Department; Master Police Officer Peter J. Lavery of the Newington Police Department; Patrolman Brian A. Aselton of the East Hartford Police Department; Officer James V. Spignesi, Jr. of the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection; Officer Walter T. Williams, III of the Waterbury Police Department; Officer Daniel Scott Wasson of the Milford Police Department; Patrolman Kenneth Bateman, Jr., of the Darien Police Department; Patrolman Gerald T. DiJoseph of the Bridgeport Police Department; and the first, whom I came to know, at least through his family--although I never knew him personally Trooper Russell Bagshaw. I have known many of these families and had the privilege of coming to know their children in many instances as well. I want to talk about Russell Bagshaw in closing for just a moment. Russell Bagshaw of the Connecticut State Police was in his patrol car, driving the streets of northeastern Connecticut in North Windham on a summer night in 1991. He was 28 years old and a 4\1/2\-year veteran of the Connecticut State Police. Each of these men I have mentioned died as a result of gunfire from criminals. Some of these shooters got a stolen weapon, perhaps illegally trafficked. None of them should have had access to any firearm. Russell Bagshaw surprised two robbers coming out of a local sporting goods store. One of the robbers shot him with a semiautomatic 9mm pistol that had a second handgrip under the barrel, and a 30-round magazine filled with hollow point bullets. Before Trooper Bagshaw had even a chance to use his radio or exit his vehicle, the shooter unloaded 17 hollow point bullets at the cruiser that took 6.6 seconds from that 30-round, high-capacity clip. The shooter fired haphazardly, but he had enough to pierce the bulletproof vest Bagshaw was wearing above the left armhole and to kill him instantly. I attended his funeral, with lines and lines of his fellow troopers and others from all around the country. I had the privilege of meeting these families--and most especially his family--brave and strong, just as the Newtown families are. Neither Russell Bagshaw's training nor any of the other preparations could stop or protect from this carnage. In fact, the troopers I met after the horrific tragedy of December 14 in Newtown and Sandy Hook told me that their bulletproof armor could not have defended them against the assault weapons with the number of rounds that Adam Lanza had at that time. There is no preparation, no bulletproof vest, no armor that can protect against these kinds of weapons shot at the range that many of them are. That is why we should listen to law enforcement--listen to the police and public officials and prosecutors who have told me since I began working on this cause in the early 1990s, when we passed the first assault weapon ban in Connecticut and I defended it in court, tried the case, and then went to State supreme court successfully defending our law against exactly the same constitutional arguments made now. They are equally without weight at this point. So I urge my colleagues, whether they are wearing this wristband or not, to choose love. I know it will be difficult. It was difficult for many Connecticut legislators, and I carry with me the pen that our Connecticut Governor used to sign our law that significantly strengthened Connecticut's protection against these weapons, against criminals bearing them, against illegal sales, and against gun violence. This cause is not going away whatever the outcome today. The vote will be close on many of these amendments. The Newtown families are not going away, the Connecticut effect is not going away, and we are not going away. Unfortunately, gun violence is not going away, and we need to redouble and reinvigorate our efforts. Whatever the outcome here today, we are not going away. The world has watched Newtown exhibit the kind of strength and courage that we regard as uniquely American. Now the world is watching the Senate, and we will be held accountable for what happens here. History is watching. Let's be on the right side of history. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, my friend, and a great champion, Senator Frank Lautenberg with us today, and others, including my colleague Senator Christopher Murphy, I call up amendment No. 714.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. This amendment, very simply, would ban high-capacity magazines of more than 10 rounds which are used to kill more people more quickly and, in fact, have been used in more than half the mass shootings since 1982. I ask my colleagues to listen to law enforcement, their police, prosecutors who are outgunned by criminals who use these high-capacity magazines. I ask that my colleagues also listen to the families, to Nicole Hockley, whose son, Dylan Hockley, was killed by a man who used a high-capacity magazine. She said of the man who killed her son, he left the smaller capacity magazines at home. He knew the larger capacity magazines were more lethal. I ask my colleagues to listen to Bill Sherlach whose wife Mary Sherlach was killed on December 14.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield the floor. PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.