Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. DURBIN. I am going to speak, and I know my colleague and friend from New Jersey is here and opposes the measure. I have been given 8 minutes, and I don't know how much of that time I will use. I will try to leave whatever is left for his use. I know he spoke yesterday, but I am sure he wants to speak again this morning. I will yield whatever is left. The other remaining time, as I understand, is controlled by the other side.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I wish to note the passing earlier this month of a treasured member of Chicago's Polish community, Kasia Bober, at the age of 80. Back in August of 2005, I introduced a bill to grant honorary posthumous citizenship to Casimir Pulaski. I held a press conference in Chicago at the Polish Museum of America in front of a giant painting of Pulaski at the Battle of Savannah. Afterward, I sat down with leaders from the Polish community to discuss various issues. Kasia joined us for the meeting and brought those famous pierogi and other treats from her deli. I learned firsthand why some consider her the ``Pierogi Queen'' of Chicago. Kasia's story is like many immigrant stories in the great melting pot of Chicago. She came to the United States in 1974 in search of a better life. At first, she lived with relatives and was separated from her three children who remained in Poland. But after years of hard work, she was finally able to reunite with her children and open her own deli. Kasia's cooking quickly became a hit, especially her potato and cheese pierogi. Customers began to call from different States, which led to Kasia's pierogi being available today in 26 States. Kasia's pierogi are so well known that at least three U.S. Presidents have eaten them while in Chicago. In an article that appeared in the Chicago Sun-Times, her granddaughter recalled that President George H.W. Bush dined on Kasia's pierogi while visiting the Copernicus Center, President Bill Clinton had some at the Taste of Chicago, and President Barack Obama ate a few during a Sister Cities festival. Polish labor leader Lech Walesa also enjoyed Kasia's cooking on a trip to Chicago. It is quite the story for an immigrant who worked 7 days a week at multiple jobs while chasing her own American dream. Up until her passing, Kasia could still be found working at her namesake deli in Chicago's Ukrainian Village neighborhood. Chicago's ``Pierogi Queen'' may be gone, but she will not soon be forgotten. I offer my condolences to Kasia's daughters, Barbara Jakubowicz and Maria Kordas; her son, Christopher; her sisters, Janina and Jozia; her six grandchildren; and her great-grandchild.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have often remarked that the education of a Senator is a daunting task. Fortunately, the U.S. Senate is blessed with many talented staff who are dedicated to that challenge. Among them is Ms. Teri Spoutz, a professional staff member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee for the past 5 years. To read through Teri's accomplishments is to understand how fortunate the Senate is to be able to attract some of the best talent in Washington, DC. Teri grew up in southern California and began her career as a civilian at Los Angeles Air Force Base. As a financial manager, she served in a variety of positions overseeing major acquisitions of satellites and rockets for the Air Force. Teri and her family then left sunny California for the cold, windswept plains of the missile fields at F.E. Warren Air Force Base, WY, as her husband, Stephen, pursued his promising career as an Air Force officer. The Spoutz family landed in Washington, DC, in 2003, and Teri continued her work in the Pentagon. By 2008, Teri had been promoted to the Senior Executive Service as the Chief of Budget Investment for the Department of the Air Force. For nearly 3 years, Teri was the top financial overseer of all Air Force procurement, research and development, and military construction funding. In March 2011, Teri was persuaded to join the staff of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee under the leadership of Chairman Daniel Inouye. Her expert knowledge of how the defense acquisition system works--and, too often, how it does not work--has resulted in many billions of dollars for our national defense being cut from underperforming programs and reinvested in more important ones. As a staffer, she carried out in-depth reviews on the most important programs in the Pentagon's budget, including detailed annual examinations of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the largest weapons contract in the history of the Pentagon, and dozens of other large developmental and procurement programs. But Teri has always held a special interest in space. On the Defense Subcommittee, she led investigations into bringing competition to space launch, which in just the last year has shown can cut the cost of rockets by half. She was also vital in stopping an effort to cut off access to rocket engines that are vital to our national security, which could have resulted in billions of additional costs to the U.S. taxpayer. Teri is soon leaving the U.S. Senate. I thank her for her service on the Defense Subcommittee, commend her for all that she has accomplished, and wish her and her family all the best.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Through the Chair, will the Senator from West Virginia yield for a question?

Mr. DURBIN. First, I thank him for his leadership on this issue. I know it is personal to him and the Presiding Officer. In my State, I think the death rate from opioids and heroin is somewhere around 12 per 100,000; in your State, I understand it is 25; in the State of New Hampshire, 35. So you have twice the problem we have, just in strict statistical terms, and New Hampshire, for some reason, has three times. And you have been outspoken on this issue. I am pleased you have been because it is not just local to you, it is a national problem. Yesterday we had the Acting Administrator for the Drug Enforcement Administration come before the Judiciary Committee. Most people are not aware, although I know you and the Presiding Officer are aware of the fact that each year the Drug Enforcement Administration approves the production of opioids by pharma. In other words, the pharmaceutical companies cannot produce these pills that are classified as narcotic, pain reliever pills, without the approval of the Drug Enforcement Administration. I am sure the Senator from West Virginia is aware of the fact that when they set the annual production quotas for opioids by U.S. pharmaceutical companies--there has been a dramatic increase. Between 1993 and 2015, a 22-year period of time, oxycodone production jumped dramatically 40 times, from 3\1/2\ tons to over 150 tons of oxycodone approved by the Drug Enforcement Administration. During the same period, the production of hydrocodone went up 12 times; hydromorphone, 23 times; and fentanyl, the drug that killed Prince, 25 times. I asked Acting Administrator Rosenberg: We are trying to destroy the opioid beast, and you are feeding it. The production levels--do you take into consideration what is happening with these drugs once they are produced by pharma and what happens to them next? Under the ordinary course of events, they are prescribed by doctors and dentists or, in some cases, some other medical professionals, and they make it to the street. He said that he was aware of it and he understood that his agency was bearing some responsibility for what has happened. Well, that is an understatement. They are certainly bearing some responsibility. So I ask the Senator from West Virginia, who has been outspoken and a real leader on this issue, when we look at the Food and Drug Administration's role on the types of opioids and we look at the Drug Enforcement Administration's role when it comes to the volume of production, is it clear that our government has some responsibility for where we are today with this opioid epidemic?

Mr. DURBIN. Through the Chair, if the Senator will yield further for a question?

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

Mr. DURBIN. The Senator and I will both concede that there are people with chronic, acute pain who need relief every single day, and we are not quarrelling with that, that it should be prescribed and there is a definite need. Pain is an issue in the lives of many people, and we need to deal with it responsibly, in medically responsible ways. I guess the question that comes to mind is, when I ask my local doctors in Illinois about this, some have shown extraordinary leadership--the Chicago Medical Society, for example. I commend them. I have written to all the medical associations saying: What are you doing in training your doctors to know when they are prescribing too much or too many pills? I give special credit to the Chicago Medical Association. They have stepped up and said: With our members, we are educating them. But this is what I hear repeatedly, and I would like the Senator's response to it. Three percent of the doctors are responsible for 50 percent of the prescriptions. That is probably true. I can't quarrel with it, nor would I. But then someone said: But that is not the whole story. Many times a person going to one of the 97 percent of physicians ends up starting down the path toward opioid addiction, and then that first physician says ``No more,'' and then they turn to the 3 percent who are just doling out the prescriptions right and left. So it seems to me that if 3 percent are the worst offenders and the ones who are really feeding the system in volume, we still can't look beyond the 97 percent and their responsibility to make sure their prescriptions do not start a person down the path toward opioid addiction. I ask the Senator from West Virginia, have you encountered this 3 percent or the irresponsible physicians?

Mr. DURBIN. It is twice the intensity and the problem of my State, and I feel it personally. There is no town too small and no suburb too wealthy to avoid the opioid addiction, leading to heroin in 80 percent of the cases and heroin overdoses and deaths. If you pick up an obituary column in downstate Illinois, my home area--small towns and rural areas, much like West Virginia--and you see the name or photograph of someone between the ages of 18 and 30, I have to tell you that in most instances, it is this--a heroin overdose. It is a sad reality all across my State.

Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator will yield further for a question, through the Chair, in the year 2014, the Drug Enforcement Agency of the United States approved the production of 14 billion opioid tablets in the United States--2014, 14 billion--enough opioid pills for every adult in America to have a 1-month prescription. So I asked a doctor in DuPage County in Illinois why. Why would doctors prescribe, as the Senator said, a 30-day prescription for a patient who may only need 2 or 3 days, and it could be renewed if they needed more? He said: Some of them are not trained well enough and some of them don't want to get a phone call on a weekend. Now, that was a pretty grim analysis by another doctor. But it really calls into question, first, pharma's producing 14 billion--14 billion-- opioid pills for America, and doctors handing to patients a 30-day prescription when, in good conscience, a few days would have been more than enough. The question is this: How do we at the Federal level--and I am asking the Senator because he is a moderate-to-conservative Democrat, and I know he is not looking for the big hand of government to solve all our problems--deal with pharma overproduction and how do we deal with doctors overprescribing?

Mr. DURBIN. I want to thank the Senator for yielding for questions through the Chair, and I would just say to him that I know the problem he faces and the Presiding Officer faces.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, 15 years ago I introduced a bill called the DREAM Act. The DREAM Act was designed to give children brought to the United States by their parents, who were undocumented, a chance--a path toward legalization, a path toward citizenship. These were people, now in their teens and early 20s, who were brought to the United States as infants and children. It was not their conscious decision to come to this country; it was a decision by their parents. They have grown up in the United States. It is estimated that 2.5 million young people came to this country under these circumstances. So many of them have done everything they have been asked to do--completed their education, stood up in a classroom every morning and pledged allegiance to that flag--the only flag they have ever known, become part of America, excelled academically, started dreaming about what they might do as Americans to make their lives better and this country better. But the law in the United States is very harsh when it comes to these young people. In its bleakest terms, the law says they have to leave the United States for 10 years and petition to come back in. Here they are, 18, 19 years of age, being told: Now that you have graduated from high school, whatever your status, leave. Go back somewhere where you cannot ever remember living and wait 10 years. So I introduced the DREAM Act, and I said: If these young people have completed their education, if they have no serious criminal issues, if they are prepared to come forward, serve their country in the military or finish their college education, we will give them a path to citizenship. Fifteen years of waiting--I can remember when these galleries were filled with young people, DREAMers, undocumented young people who sat one Saturday morning in their caps and gowns in the gallery, praying that we would pass the DREAM Act and give them a chance to become part of the only country they have ever known. The measure failed on the floor of the Senate. It was a brokenhearted moment for me, facing these young people, many of them in tears, sobbing, not knowing what their lives would lead to. I said to them: If you will not give up on me, I am not going to give up on you. Let's keep working at this. I sent a letter in April of 2010 to my friend, the President of the United States, who had been a cosponsor of the DREAM Act, and I said to President Obama: Can you do something? Can you do something to allow these young people to have a chance? Give them a chance. And he did. He came through with a program called DACA. This deferred action program was really designed to give these young people a temporary stay from deportation. It is only temporary, for several years. But in order to get that stay, they had to come forward; they had to register with the government, pay a filing fee, make sure all their vital information had been disclosed, and go through a thorough criminal background check. Then, if they got a job, they would pay their taxes, as required of every person living in this country, and they would have a temporary stay of deportation to stay here, go to school, or work. Several years later, they would have to do it all over again and go through the same background check and pay the same fees. The President signed that Executive action and said it was within his authority as Chief Executive to decide what are the highest priorities as to who should be deported from the United States. The President rightly said: Let's go after felons and dangerous criminals. They shouldn't be part of our country. Why would we go after these young people who only want to complete their education and be a positive part of our future? So the President signed the Executive action for DACA. Sometime later came an opportunity to consider families in similar circumstances. Most people have a mistaken notion that if you are undocumented, everybody in your home is undocumented. I haven't found that to be the case. More often than not, only one parent would be undocumented. The father may be an American citizen. All the kids may be American citizens, but mom may be undocumented. The President put in another proposal and said: In those circumstances where you have someone undocumented in the country with a child who is an American citizen, you can apply for what is known as DAPA, which gave them the same temporary stay of deportation. You had to pay your filing fee, go through a criminal background check, pay taxes on any money you earned, and for a temporary period of time, you would not be deported. When the President signed that second Executive action, a number of Governors, Republicans from across the States, filed an action to stop the implementation of the President's Executive action. That is a big deal. It literally affects millions of people in this country who are undocumented. These Governors argued that if they were forced, for example, in the State of Texas to give drivers' licenses to undocumented people, they would have administrative expenses so the President's order would create a hardship on their State. Of course, what they failed to acknowledge was these new people under the Executive order would be paying taxes, legally paying their taxes to the Federal and State government, and they would pay any fee necessary to get a driver's license imposed by the State of Texas. The case went before the Supreme Court. The decision was handed down a few minutes ago. The decision of the Supreme Court, sadly, shows the terrible human cost of the Senate Republican strategy to recklessly refuse to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court created by the death of Justice Scalia. You know what happened several months ago when Justice Scalia was on a hunting trip and sadly passed away, to the shock of everyone. There was a vacancy on the Supreme Court. The President of the United States did what he was supposed to do. In article II of the Constitution, there is a requirement the President fill the vacancies on the Supreme Court. Why would the Founding Fathers put a requirement on the President? They understood some President could play games with vacancies on the Court. They said: No, you have to send your nominee's name to the U.S. Senate where we will have the opportunity to advise and consent as to that nominee. The President met his responsibility. Judge Merrick Garland works for the DC Court of Appeals. In fact, he is the Chief Judge of the DC Circuit. The President sent his name to fill the Scalia vacancy. Is Merrick Garland qualified? The American Bar Association this week said what we already knew: Merrick Garland is unanimously well- qualified for the position. The President's nominee at that point would come before the Senate. In the history of the United States, we have never ever denied a nominee for the Supreme Court vacancy a hearing and a vote in the United States--never--until this very moment when the Republican leadership in the U.S. Senate said: No, we are not going to fill the vacancy because we are hoping our Presidential candidate--in this case, Mr. Donald Trump--will be able to fill that vacancy so we will keep the vacancy open for our dream candidate, President Donald Trump. It is the first time in the history of the United States, the Senate has turned its back on a Presidential request to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. We warned the Republicans this could create some problems. Today we see exactly the kind of problem that can be created. The ``human cost of Senate Republicans' reckless refusal to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court'' is going to be felt by literally millions of people. Today the Supreme Court failed to resolve the legal challenge to DAPA and expanded DACA, the Executive orders of President. The result of that 4-to-4 tie vote leaves millions of families across America in legal limbo. I urge this Justice Department to consider all the legal options to swiftly overturn the injunction that is blocking President Obama from using his legal authority to set immigration enforcement priorities. DAPA and an expanded DACA will make our country safer and allow law- abiding individuals with deep roots in our communities to step out of the shadows and contribute more fully to the country they love. A tie vote on the U.S. Supreme Court--I can't remember the last time that happened. It happens very rarely. It didn't have to happen. If the Senate Republican majority had done its job, had faced its constitutional responsibility, held a hearing for Merrick Garland and voted him up or down, I have confidence he would have been approved and been a member of this U.S. Supreme Court. We could have avoided what we now face--a split Court, 4 to 4, which cannot resolve critical and controversial issues. The net result of the Republican refusal to fill that vacancy is to create an injustice across America for millions living in this country, an uncertainty about their future. That is the height of constitutional irresponsibility, and it played out across the street and was announced just minutes ago. This is what happens when the Senate Republicans refuse to do their job, when they say we are going to play politics with filling a vacancy on the Supreme Court. We are going to hope and pray Donald Trump will come forward and fill this vacancy with somebody we like a little better than the nominee of President Obama. It is a sad day, and now we know what this constitutional irresponsibility by the Senate Republicans has done. It has created a fractured Court. It has split our Nation in terms of the law. It has derogated one of the most important institutions in our government. I hope a few Republicans will step up and realize that waiting for President Trump to fill this vacancy is the wrong answer. We need to accept the Constitution's mandate to move quickly to fill this vacancy as quickly as possible. In the meantime, with the split Court decision, we need to call on our Justice Department to do everything possible to try to find a path toward a just resolution, which the Supreme Court was unable to find today. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided between the Democrats and Republicans during the quorum call.

Mr. DURBIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak as in morning business. Zika Virus Mr. President, the statement just made by the Senate Democratic leader on the Zika challenge to the United States is well documented. What is well documented is that the President of the United States came to Congress 4 months ago and said: We are facing a public health threat. Do something. For 4 months the Republican-led Congress has done nothing. Meanwhile, the mosquitoes carrying this deadly virus are on the march. This is a report from the New York Times from last week which I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record in its entirety.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this article is entitled, ``U.S. Officials Are Surprised by Zika Rate in Puerto Rico.'' It goes on: ``Roughly 1 percent of recent blood donors in Puerto Rico showed signs of active infection with the Zika virus, suggesting that a substantial portion of the island's population will become infected, federal health officials reported on Friday.'' They go on to cite the statistics that have been analyzed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and here is what they concluded: Based on prior experience, Dr. Williamson [of the CDC] said he would not have expected so many Zika-infected donors until late June or early July. The CDC has estimated that as many as a quarter of the island's 3.5 million people may become infected with the Zika virus this year. ``It's possible that thousands of pregnant women in Puerto Rico could be infected,'' Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, [the CDC's] director, told Reuters . . . leading to ``dozens or hundreds of infants being born with microcephaly in the coming year.'' What is the Republican majority waiting for in the U.S. Senate? What is the Republican majority waiting for in the U.S. House of Representatives? Don't they believe this is a serious public health threat? If they don't, they are ignoring the obvious--evidence given to us by the leading public health defense agency in the United States of America, if not the world. Over and over again, they tell us this is a deadly threat. While the infection rates increase and the infections among pregnant women increase and the number of these infants who are afflicted by serious birth defects increase, the Republicans in the House and Senate are too busy focusing on Donald Trump to pay attention to this public health crisis. It is about time they accepted the reality, and the reality is they were elected to lead, they were elected to protect, they were elected to serve, and when it comes to the Zika virus, they are doing none of this. They are standing back, twisted in knots, trying to figure out how to take money away from other public health challenges to deal with this, and 4 months have passed. These mosquitoes are spreading this infection across Puerto Rico, and soon we will know more in the United States. Senator Reid suggested there were 2,000 Americans with the Zika virus infection; 400--if I recall his numbers correctly--pregnant women, and there is already evidence of babies here being born afflicted because of this infection. What is the Republican majority waiting for? Fighting Terrorism Mr. President, the Senate Republican leader came to the floor earlier this morning to speak to us about ISIL and terrorism. I hope he understands there is a political consensus on the following statement: We should do everything in our power to prevent any terrorist attack in the United States and everything in our power to stop the spread of terrorism overseas, including and especially when it comes to ISIS. What Senator Reid asked of Senator McConnell is the right question. You come with criticism of our current policy, but you offer nothing. There is no suggestion by the Senate Republican leader that we should be sending invading armies again. We did try that in Iraq, and the consequences are well known. We lost 4,844 lives--American soldiers who gave their lives in Iraq. Over a half million returned with injuries, some of them with injuries that will be with them for a lifetime. The cost to the United States in terms of death, injury, and the problems that these veterans face will go on for generations. Is the Senator from Kentucky suggesting we should do that again? I hope not. What we are doing is joining up with Iraqi forces to defeat ISIS. We are using the best of American intelligence and guidance to make sure they are effective and there is evidence of success. The statement put in the Record from Senator Carper goes into detail. Senator Reid alluded to it in his speech. It talks about the things we have done and the success we have had. The notion that we can do this overnight, that we just invade with a large U.S. Army--if that is what Senator McConnell is suggesting, I would suggest he go back in history and reflect on his own vote for the invasion of Iraq, which I disagreed with at the time and still do. It was a mistake for us to invade. Then there is the question about the gun issue, particularly when it comes to assault weapons. Do you know what the terrorists have told us? They basically said to us: Go ahead and fight the last war. Focus on what happened on 9/11. Put all your resources at airports. Be ready to stop anyone who wants to take over an airplane. It is a worthy goal, but while you are diverted with that goal, fighting the last terrorist war, we are opening up new fronts, and one of those fronts very specifically is that the terrorists warned us: We know where to buy assault weapons in the United States. We know about your gun shows. We know about your Internet sales, and that is where we are going to turn. They are calling on their aspiring terrorists around the world to find access to assault weapons and turn them on innocent Americans. We saw the devastating impact of that in Orlando two weeks ago. Because of the filibuster last week that was initiated by Senator Murphy of Connecticut and sustained by Senator Booker of New Jersey and Senator Blumenthal of Connecticut and 37 others who came to the floor to support them, we forced a vote on Monday night on 4 gun safety issues. None of them passed. It was established that they needed an extraordinary majority. That was the decision made by the Republican leadership. While we came close to a majority on many of these votes, we didn't have the 60 votes necessary to make them law. Luckily, we have one Republican Senator on the Republican side who showed extraordinary courage. Senator Collins of Maine has stepped up to try to craft a measure to keep deadly weapons out of the hands of terrorists in the United States. Do the American people agree with Senator Collins? Only by a margin of 90 percent, they believe she is right. They believe we are right--that we should do something to defy the National Rifle Association and make it more difficult for those who are suspected terrorists to buy firearms, especially assault weapons. Well, she is working on it, and I am working with her. Many of us are supporting her effort--a bipartisan effort, and one that is long overdue. When the Senator who is the Republican majority leader comes to the floor and says we need to do more to fight terrorism, what is he doing to fight terrorism? When it comes to assault weapons and those who are purchasing them in the United States--like the deadly killer in Orlando--he can help us. The Kentucky Senator who is the Republican leader can help us by making America safer and keeping automatic weapons, assault weapons, and semiautomatic weapons out of the hands of would-be terrorists. That would mean defying the National Rifle Association, and many on the Republican side are scared to death of that--just scared to death of what that organization might do to them if they join Senator Collins, if they join Senator Feinstein, in trying to stem the rise of terrorism from these assault weapons in the United States. I have said it before and I will say it again: There is no self- respecting hunter, sportsman, or even a person looking for self-defense who can defend these weapons that are being sold in the United States. There was a Snapchat video of one of the victims in Orlando, the last 9 seconds of her life before she was killed. She turned on her cell phone, and in 9 seconds, 17 rounds were fired by this aspiring ISIS terrorist who had access to an assault weapon. Assault weapons belong in the hands of law enforcement and the military. They shouldn't be so easily accessible by those who would turn them on innocent Americans, whether it is in a classroom in Newtown, CT, or in a nightclub in Orlando. I would say to the Senator from Kentucky that if he wants to stop terrorism, start at home. Start at home by preventing terrorist access to these deadly weapons that have no effective use when it comes to sport and hunting and that are just being purchased, sadly, for collections reasons or for those who want to misuse the weapons to kill innocent people. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.