Violent Content Research Act of 2013

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013. This legislation is urgently needed to help end the mass shootings that have devastated countless families and that lead too many Americans to live their lives in fear.

Imagine that you receive a call from your child's school that there has been a shooting. How would you feel? Panicked? Terror-stricken? Helpless? Those were the feelings experienced by hundreds of parents whose children attend Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT.

Now imagine that, after rushing to the school, you receive the terrible news that your child is not coming back. On December 14, 20 sets of parents heard those devastating words. Their lives will never be the same.

I remain horrified by the mass murders that were committed that day in Newtown. But I am even more incensed that our weak gun laws allow mass killings to be carried out again and again in our country. Since 1982, there have been at least 62 mass shootings across the United States. Even worse, the rate of these shootings has been accelerating: Twenty-five of these shootings have occurred since 2006, and 7 took place in 2012.

These massacres don't stop--they just continue on and on. They have become tragically common in our society.

For each shooting that occurs, there are parents and grandparents, brothers and sisters, and aunts and uncles who have forever lost someone special in their lives: In Newtown, 26 families will never hear the laughter of their son or daughter again. In Aurora, Colorado, 12 people who attended a movie on a July night will never be able to enjoy another night out. At Virginia Tech, 32 families will never see their son or daughter again. In Tucson, AZ, 6 people

never returned home from meeting their Congresswoman one Saturday morning 2 years ago. My friend, Gabby Giffords, will never be the same.

The one common thread running through all of these shootings is that the gunman used a semiautomatic assault weapon or large capacity ammunition magazine or drum.

These military-style weapons have but one purpose: to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible. Since the last assault weapons ban expired in 2004, over 350 people have been killed with assault weapons. Over 450 have been injured.

I do not intend to sit by while these killings continue. That is why today I am joining with my colleagues Senators Schumer, Durbin, Whitehouse, Blumenthal, Levin, Rockefeller, Mikulski, Boxer, Reed, Lautenberg, Menendez, Cardin, Gillibrand, Schatz, Murphy, and Warren to introduce legislation to prohibit the sale, transfer, manufacture, and importation of assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices that can accept more than 10 rounds.

As the members of this body know, we had an assault weapons ban in place from 1994-2004. I was the author of that ban in the Senate, and Senator Schumer carried that ban as the then-Chairman of the House Crime Subcommittee.

The 1994 law was not perfect, but it was working when it expired in 2004. The supply of assault weapons was drying up, and crime committed with those weapons was decreasing. Don't take my word for it; scientific studies bear this about.

The 1994 law required the Justice Department to study and report on its effectiveness. That study, completed in 1997, found that the ban was responsible for a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders, holding all other factors equal.

The Justice Department sponsored a subsequent follow-on study in 2004, as the law was getting ready to expire. That study, carried out by the University of Pennsylvania, found that by about 9 years after the law took effect, the use of assault weapons in crime had declined by more than 2/3--70 percent.

The Washington Post found that the percentage of firearms seized by police in Virginia that had high-capacity magazines dropped significantly during the ban. That figure has doubled since the ban expired.

The Police Executive Research Forum found that 37 percent of police departments reported seeing a noticeable increase in criminals' use of assault weapons since the ban expired.

Studies of state-level assault weapons bans also show that these bans DO work. A study of Maryland's State ban on assault pistols found that in the first six months after the ban was enacted, ``the Baltimore City Police Department recovered 55 percent fewer assault pistols than would have been expected had there been no ban.''

Let me just address for a moment the arguments of some of the opponent of this legislation. They point to overall crime rates, and say the 1994 ban did not affect them. But that overstates the purpose of the ban. It was never intended to reduce all crime. It was intended to reduce gun murders, and specifically mass shootings. And the research found that it did just that.

A 6.7 percent decrease is not a complete solution. But if one of the lives saved was your child, your husband, your sister, your parent, it makes all the difference in the world. As President Obama has said, if we can save even one life, then we must try. And a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders--that is a lot more than one life.

Our police officers, the men and women who pledge their lives to protect us, are particularly at risk from assault weapons. A study by the Violence Policy Center found that, between 1998 and 2001, one in five law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty was killed with an assault weapon.

Recognizing this, I am proud to have the support of the Major Cities Chiefs of Police Association and several other organizations representing law enforcement. Every day, they must stare down ever- more-powerful military-style assault weapons.

The legislation we are introducing today will strengthen the 1994 law, allowing it to be even more effective:

The 1994 law prohibited semiautomatic weapons that could accept a detachable magazine, and had at least two military characteristics. The bill we are introducing today tightens this test to prohibit semiautomatic rifles, handguns, and shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic. One criticism of the 1994 law was that its ``two-characteristic'' test was too easy to ``work around'': a manufacture could simply remove one of the characteristics, and the firearm was legal. The bill we are introducing today will be much more difficult to work around.

The bill also accounts for specific ``work-arounds'' that the gun industry developed to avoid the 1994 law and similar State bans.

The bill prohibits ``thumbhole stocks'', which manufacturers developed to allow a stock to function like a pistol grip, which is a standard military feature in State bans and the expired Federal ban.

It also prohibits ``bullet buttons'', a feature that certain manufacturers developed to evade state restrictions on detachable ammunition magazines. Some state laws describe a ``detachable magazine'' as one that can be removed without the use of a tool. So these gun manufacturers developed so-called ``bullet buttons'' that allow magazines to be removed with the use of the simplest of tools, such as a key, another bullet, or even a magnet. With these ``bullet buttons'', what is supposed to be a fixed magazine becomes in practical application a detachable magazine. Our bill contains tight language to close this loophole.

Other changes to the bill include updating the list of specifically- named military-style firearms that are prohibited, to account for new models that have been developed since 1994. We now prohibit 158 weapons by name.

The bill prohibits semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.

The bill adds a ban on the importation of assault weapons and large- capacity magazines; and eliminates the 10-year sunset that allowed the original law to expire.

Like the 1994 law, our legislation will prohibit large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds. These large magazines and drums are so dangerous because they allow a shooter to fire 15, 30, even 100 rounds without having to reload.

Now, let me tell you what the bill will not do.

It will not affect hunting or sporting firearms. Instead, the bill protects legitimate hunters by protecting 2,258 specifically-named firearms used for hunting or sporting purposes, and exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons.

Let me be clear: the bill will not take away weapons you currently own. Anybody who says otherwise is simply trying to deceive you. Instead, the bill protects the rights of existing gun owners by grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment.

An important change from the 1994 law is that we address the millions of assault weapons that currently exist. While, as in 1994, they would remain legal after our bill takes effect, any future sale or transfer of such a weapon would require a background check to be conducted of the purchaser or recipient. We do have an exception for intra-family transfers. Keeping these powerful weapons out of the hands of known criminals and people with adjudicated mental problems is a no-brainer.

The bill also imposes a safe storage requirement for grandfathered firearms to ensure they don't get into the hands of people who would be prohibited from possessing them.

While the bill permits the continued possession of high-capacity ammunition magazines that are legally possessed on the date of enactment, it would ban the future transfer of these magazines.

Finally, the bill allows local jurisdictions to use existing Federal Byrne JAG grant money to support voluntary buy-back programs for grandfathered assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices.

Opponents charge that this legislation impinges upon rights protected by the Second Amendment. I recognize that the Supreme Court has clearly held that there is an individual right to possess firearms that is protected by

the Second Amendment to the Constitution, and I respect that right.

However, the Supreme Court was also very clear that, like other rights protected by other amendments in the Bill of Rights, this is not an unlimited right. For instance, the First Amendment's protection of free speech does not allow someone to falsely yell ``Fire!'' in a crowded theater. Justice Scalia, the author of the majority opinion in the seminal case of District of Columbia v. Heller, said this plainly: ``Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.''

Justice Scalia, no flaming liberal he, went on to say: ``We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. [United States v.] Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those `in common use at the time.' We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of `dangerous and unusual weapons.' ''

The muskets of the 18th Century bear little resemblance to the rapid- fire military-style assault weapons today, and their single-shot weapons are a far cry from the 100-round ammunition drum that was used to inflict such carnage at a movie theater in Aurora, CO. These are particularly dangerous weapons, which the Government is well within its rights to regulate under the Second Amendment and the Heller decision. The Second Amendment protects an individual's ability to own a weapon; it does not protect their ability to own any weapon. Any reasonable person would recognize limitations on this right: an individual should not own a nuclear weapon, they should not own a rocket launcher, and they should not own a military-style assault weapon.

Let me conclude with these thoughts:

The most important duty that government has to its citizens is to provide for their safety.

When 20 kindergarteners are slaughtered by an assault weapon, our government has failed to provide for their safety.

When 12 people are gunned down in a movie theater by an assault weapon, our government has failed to provide for their safety.

The firearms used in these massacres are weapons of war. They are weapons designed to kill the maximum number of people in the shortest period of time. We should be outraged by how easy it is for the perpetrators of these horrific crimes to purchase powerful weapons.

Let me say it as plainly as I can: weapons of war do not belong on our streets, in our schools, in our malls, in our theaters, or in our workplaces.

We know the common denominator in these deadly massacres and these daily shootings: easy access to killing machines designed for the battlefield. The circumstances may differ, but the one constant is always the guns.

These weapons not only take away the lives of our loved ones. They also take away our freedom--our freedom to live without fear.

When a child is fearful of walking down the street outside his home, he has lost his freedom.

When Americans wonder whether the next massacre with an assault weapon will take place in their town, they have lost their freedom.

I ask all of my colleagues to join me in this fight.

Join with our chiefs of police who say ``no'' to assault weapons.

Join with teachers from across our nation who say ``no'' to assault weapons.

Join with the emergency room doctors and medical professionals from every corner of our country who say ``no'' to assault weapons.

Join with clergy from all denominations who say ``no'' to assault weapons.

Join with the 58 percent of Americans who support an Assault Weapons Ban.

I am proud that the bill we are introducing has been endorsed by so many organizations and public officials:

Law Enforcement: International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators; International Association of Chiefs of Police; Major Cities Chiefs Association; National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence; Police Foundation; Women in Federal Law Enforcement; Charlie Beck, Chief, Los Angeles Police Department; Lee Baca, Sheriff, Los Angeles County; Scott Knight, Chief of Police, Chaska Police Department (MN), and former chair, Firearms Committee, International Association of Chiefs of Police; and Bill Lansdowne, Police Chief, San Diego;

Localities: U.S. Conference of Mayors; Boston City Council; City of Stockton (CA); County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors; Ventura County Board of Supervisors (CA); Mayor David Glass, Petaluma, CA; Mayor Emmett O'Donnell, Tiburon, CA; Mayor Jill Hunter, Saratoga, CA; Mayor Hilary Bryant, Santa Cruz, CA; Mayor Bob Filner, San Diego, CA; Mayor Bob Foster, Long Beach, CA; Mayor Michael Harris, Pleasant Hill, CA; Mayor Kevin Johnson, Sacramento, CA; Mayor Edwin M. Lee, San Francisco, CA; Mayor Jean Quan, Oakland, CA; Mayor Chuck Reed, San Jose, CA; Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa, Los Angeles, CA; Superintendent Anthony Smith, Oakland Unified School District; Mayor Miguel Pulido, Santa Ana, CA; City of Lemon Grove; Mayor Cheryl Cox, Chula Vista, CA; San Diego Unified School District; City of Calabasas; City of Ventura; City of Los Angeles; City of West Hollywood; Mayor Rob Schroder, Martinez, CA; and Mayor Amanda Gilmore, Alameda, CA;

Gun Safety: Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence; Coalition to Stop Gun Violence; Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence; Mayors Against Illegal Guns; Violence Policy Center; and Washington CeaseFire;

Education/Child Welfare: American Academy of Pediatrics; American Federation of Teachers; Boys & Girls Clubs of America; Child Welfare League of America; Children's Defense Fund; Every Child Matters; Moms Rising; National Association of Social Workers; National PTA; National Education Association; and 20 Children;

Religious Community: African Methodist Episcopal Church; Alliance of Baptists; American Baptist Churches of the South; American Baptist Home Mission Societies; American Friends Service Committee; Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America; Camp Brotherhood; Catholic Charities USA; Catholic Health Association; Catholic Health Initiatives; Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good; Catholics United; Church of the Brethren; Church Women United, Inc.; Conference of Major Superiors of Men; Disciples Home Missions, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ); Dominican Sisters of Peace; FaithsAgainstGunViolence.org; Franciscan Action Network; Friends Committee on National Legislation; Health Ministries Association; Heeding God's Call; Hindu American Foundation; Interfaith Alliance of Idaho; Islamic Society of North America; Jewish Council for Public Affairs; Jewish Reconstructionist Movement; Leadership Conference of Women Religious; Mennonite Central Committee, Washington Office; National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd; National Council of Churches; National Episcopal Health Ministries; NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby; Pax Christi USA; PICO Network Lifelines to Healing; Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Office of Public Witness; Progressive National Baptist Convention; Rabbinical Assembly; Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism; San Francisco Interfaith Council; Sikh Council on Religion and Education, USA; Sisters of Mercy of the Americas; Sojourners; Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations; United Church of Christ; United Methodist Church; United Methodist Women; United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development; United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism; Washington National Cathedral; and Women of Reform Judaism;

Medical Community: American Academy of Pediatrics; American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; American College of Surgeons; American Public Health Association; Doctors for America; and National Association of School Nurses;

Other Organizations: Alliance for Business Leadership; American Bar Association; Black American Political Association of California; Grandmothers for Peace International; National Parks Conservation Association; Sierra Club; TASH; Viet Nam Veterans in the Media; VoteVets.org; and Washington Office on Latin America.

But we should have no illusions. This will be a big fight.

It will be an uphill battle--all the way. I know this.

But we need to ask ourselves:

Do we let the gun industry take over and dictate policy to this country? Do we let those who profit from increasing sales of these military style-weapons prevent us from taking commonsense steps to stop the carnage?

Or should we empower our elected representatives to vote their conscience based on their experience, based on their sense of right and wrong and based on their need to protect their schools, their malls, their workplaces and their businesses?

This legislation is my life's goal. As long as I am a member of the Senate, I will work night and day to pass this bill into law. No matter how long it takes, I will fight until assault weapons are taken off our streets.

Put simply, we cannot allow the rights of a few to override the safety of all. That is not the America that our founding fathers envisioned. And that is not the America I want my children and grandchildren to live in.

So I ask everyone watching at home: please get involved and stay involved.

The success or failure of this bill depends not on me, but on you. If the American people rise up and demand action from their elected officials, we will be victorious. If the American people say ``no'' to military-style assault weapons, we will rid our Nation of this scourge.

Please, talk to your senator and your member of Congress.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Women Veterans and Other Health Care Improvement Act of 2013. I am incredibly proud of the women and men who have served or are serving our Nation in uniform, and I am grateful for the sacrifices they make on our behalf. That is why we must do everything in our power to meet the needs of our veterans and servicemembers. As those needs change, we must ensure the care available keeps pace.

That is why I introduced legislation, which was signed into law as part of the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010, which helped to transform the way that the Department of Veterans Affairs addresses the needs of women veterans. Among other things, that law required the VA to provide neonatal care, train mental health professionals to provide mental health services for sexual trauma, and develop a child care pilot program. VA has an obligation to provide veterans with quality care and it is our responsibility to make sure that VA does so. The legislation I am introducing today builds upon that effort to make additional improvements to VA's services for women veterans and veterans with families.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been characterized by increasing use of improvised explosive devices that leave servicemembers, both male and female, at increased risk for blast injuries including spinal cord injury and trauma to the reproductive and urinary systems. Defense Department data show that between 2003 and 2012 nearly 2,000 women and men suffered these types of injuries while serving in Iraq or Afghanistan.

These devastating and life-changing wounds can destroy the vision these men and women, and their spouses, had for the future. Having a family is one of the cornerstones of life that so many people look forward to and see as a fundamental part of their lives. To have dreams shattered because you were brave enough to put yourself in harm's way for your country is something we can never fully repay. But we must do everything we can.

As our warriors return from the battlefield, the VA system must be equipped to help injured veterans step back into their lives as parents, spouses, and citizens. These veterans have served honorably and have made the ultimate sacrifice for our great Nation. They deserve the opportunity to pursue their goals and dreams, whether that includes pursuing higher education, finding gainful employment, purchasing their first house, or starting their own family. VA has many programs that help veterans pursue the educational, career, or homeownership dreams and goals that they deferred in service to this country, but it falls short when it comes to helping severely wounded veterans who want to start a family. These veterans often need far more advanced services in order to conceive a child.

The Department of Defense and the Tricare program are already able to provide advanced fertility treatments, including assisted reproductive technology, to servicemembers with complex injuries. However, not all injured servicemembers are prepared to have a child at the time they are eligible for that coverage, and some are no longer eligible for Tricare by the time they are ready.

VA's fertility counseling and treatment options are limited and do not meet the complex needs of severely injured veterans. I have heard from seriously wounded veterans whose injuries have made it impossible for them to conceive children naturally. While the details of these stories vary, the common thread that runs through them all is that these veterans were unable to obtain the type of assistance they need. Some have spent tens of thousands of dollars on advanced reproductive treatments in the private sector to get what they need to start a family. Others have watched their marriage collapse because the stress of infertility, in combination with the stresses of readjusting to life after severe injury, drove their relationship to a breaking point. Any servicemember who sustains this type of serious injury deserves much better. It is our responsibility to give VA the tools it needs to serve them, and the Women Veterans and Other Health Care Improvement Act is a start at doing that.

This legislation also requires VA to build upon existing research framework to gain a better understanding of the long-term reproductive health care needs of veterans, from those who experience severe reproductive and urinary tract trauma to those who experience gender- specific infections in the battlefield. An Army task force charged with looking at the needs of female servicemembers reported that women in the battlefield experience higher rates of urinary tract infections and other women's health difficulties.

After a decade at war, many women servicemembers are still at increased risk for women's health problems due to deployment conditions and a lack of predeployment women's health information, compounded by privacy and safety concerns. Little is known about the impact that these issues and injuries have on the long-term health care needs of veterans. Additional research will provide critical information to help VA improve services for veterans.

Caring for children is another frequent problem veterans encounter when trying to get health care. To address this, my legislation provides permanent authority for VA to provide child care to veterans going to medical centers or Vet Centers for health care. A pilot program examining these services is nearing completion and the results have been overwhelmingly positive. Those pilots have been very popular with veterans and VA employees, and have been far less expensive than originally estimated.

This legislation is also fully paid for. VA would be empowered to ask contractors and large corporations to pay a relatively small fee in order to provide the care needed by some of our most seriously wounded veterans. This would not hurt small businesses or veteran owned small businesses, because the Secretary would be given the authority to exempt those small businesses to ensure their ability to compete is not jeopardized.

Finally, I would point out that last Congress, in fact just a little more than a month ago, these provisions were unanimously approved by the Senate. I think the other Members of this body realized then that we must meet the changing needs of all our servicemembers and veterans, and that regardless of gender we must fulfill our obligation to do everything we can to make whole those who have been injured in service to this country.

I hope all of my colleagues will again support this legislation so we can provide care to meet these most serious needs.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the HELP Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 133; that the Senate proceed to its consideration; that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Reserving the right to object, the kind of abuse, the kind of betrayal of trust described in the resolution proposed by my friend and my colleague from Connecticut is different in kind from that described in my resolution. The kind of abuse involved in my resolution involves the intentional taking, the first-degree premeditated murder of a human life. I think that deserves its own consideration, and on that basis I object.

Madam President, I rise to ask my colleagues once again to join me in expressing the sense of the Senate that governments at all levels have a compelling interest in preventing and punishing the practices of late-term abortions under unsafe, unsanitary, and illegal circumstances.

It seems as though every day we find new evidence that this problem is much bigger than we could have feared previously. Earlier this week, of course, Philadelphia abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell was convicted on three counts of first-degree murder for severing the spines of newborn infants, and one count of involuntary manslaughter for the death of a pregnant mother who came to see Dr. Gosnell for care.

The shocking details of the Gosnell case have, despite the best efforts of

the mainstream media to cover it up, become national news. The abortion industry has spun into action, trying to isolate and condemn Gosnell as an aberration. Planned Parenthood cited Gosnell's ``appalling crimes.'' NARAL called him a ``butcher.'' On this very floor last week, Gosnell's actions were decried by pro-choice Senators as ``reprehensible'' and ``an outrage . . . a violation of everything we hold dear.''

But Kermit Gosnell has only been sentenced to life in prison and condemned as a monster for doing things for which--had he done them just a few seconds earlier or a few centimeters in a different direction--those same voices might have hailed him as a hero and not as a monster.

Remember, President Obama himself, while serving in the State legislature of Illinois, voted against legislation that would have protected the civil and constitutional rights of infants--human beings--born alive.

At a recent hearing in the Florida State Legislature, a Planned Parenthood representative refused even to acknowledge that newborn babies have the right to life. In recent weeks, undercover videos have caught abortion clinics around the country casually offering to kill infants born alive. Just this week, evidence emerged about similar abuses at a clinic in Texas.

This has nothing to do with health care or even with medical negligence but with murder--a war on women and children waged under the guise of legitimate health care.

As much as we might want to agree that Kermit Gosnell is an aberration, recent revelations, indeed, suggest otherwise. A mounting body of evidence seems to suggest that at least among some late-term abortion providers and advocates, the immorality of infanticide may be an open question.

The abortion industry's defense of late-term abortion has always been based on a rejection of innate human dignity. How could it be otherwise? But as technology advances, their case for late-term abortion increasingly rejects medical science as well.

We now know as a scientific fact that unborn children, after about 20 weeks of development, can feel pain. We know Dr. Gosnell's victims squirmed and cried before he severed their spinal cords, and we know that every day medical technology progresses our abortion laws fall further behind the science.

It is a tragedy all on its own that even today our laws defining human life depend more on geography than biology. The unsettling question before us now is: Has an industry whose profits have always depended on dehumanizing unborn children gone even further and dehumanized children born alive too?

The case of Kermit Gosnell, the undercover videos, and recent clinic scandals around the country all hint at a terrifying answer. Yet right now we just don't know. My resolution would call on governments at all levels to find out--to find out what the late-term abortion industry is up to and to take any appropriate and necessary measures to prevent and punish abusive, unsanitary, and illegal practices.

Some might say this resolution is a symbolic gesture, and I and others have introduced more concrete legislation. Perhaps. But even so, symbols are themselves important. It is important that the strong stand for the weak; that we, in the world's greatest deliberative body, lend our voices to the voiceless; that we, representatives of the most powerful Nation on Earth, promise to protect the weakest, most innocent, and most vulnerable among us and punish those who would do our children harm.

Yes, I would.

I ask unanimous consent I be given 60 seconds to answer the question and then I will yield.

Madam President, in short, in response to the question from my colleague from Texas, I do find it difficult to understand why anyone would oppose this resolution. I also find it difficult to understand how this can be put on the same plate--as serious as other kinds of abuses are, as serious as other acts of medical malpractice may be, this one is different. This is about premeditated first degree murder of the most defenseless, most vulnerable people in our society, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, I wish to point out that the incident that led to this resolution--the Kermit Gosnell prosecution--indeed resulted in a successful prosecution. He was convicted of three counts of first-degree murder and one count of involuntary manslaughter. That case is closed. The criminal justice system has done its part, and the three life sentences without the possibility of parole means that the interests there--the very important public interests--will be served and he will never again harm women, infants or anyone else through his version of medical practice, that distorted and unfortunate betrayal of trust that he called a medical practice.

We need very much to focus on the kind of abuse of trust--unsanitary, abusive, unsafe medical practices--across this country, no matter what kind of procedure is involved, and that is the reason I think this resolution is too narrow in its focus on violations of the standard of medical care when they occur in medical practice, which most certainly was involved in the Gosnell case and involved, unfortunately, in thousands of cases across the country every year.

As Senators, we have a responsibility to focus on that betrayal of trust and care when it occurs. That is the reason I have offered a resolution--S. Res. 134--to express the sense of the Senate that all incidents of abusive, unsanitary, illegal, unhealthful medical practices should be condemned and prevented, and the perpetrators should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, as Gosnell was.

There are, unfortunately, many instances already publicly disclosed of these abuses of standards, and one of them, for example, I cited on the floor just very recently--last week. I remind my colleagues of the Oklahoma dentist who exposed as many as 7,000 patients to the HIV and hepatitis B and C viruses through unsanitary practices. So far, 60 of his patients have tested positive for these viruses. Those are 60 people who trusted a health care provider in a position of authority to provide safe, quality care. Those patients now face life-threatening diseases. In Nevada, practitioners at an endoscopy center exposed 40,000 patients to hepatitis C through their unsanitary practices, which went on for years. My resolution speaks to these kinds of abuses--unsafe, unsanitary practices--no matter what the medical procedure involved may be. So I urge my colleagues to support my resolution, and I do object to the proposed resolution of the Senator from Utah.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the HELP Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 134, and the Senate proceed to its consideration; that the resolution be agreed to, the Blumenthal amendment to the preamble, which is at the desk, be agreed to, the preamble, as amended, be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

If I may respond to my friend's remarks--and I certainly not only sympathize with his motivation but also with the result--I just think it is too narrow a result--to investigate one form of medical practice, no matter how egregious the violation of standard of care may be. In this instance, it involved murder. We can say it now, no longer with the word ``alleged'' before murder, as we did last week. It is now proven. It is heinous and unacceptable. But so are the practices that involve exposing patients to very severe illnesses; and, likewise, the nursing home director in California who inappropriately administered an antipsychotic medicine to residents simply for convenience and which resulted in the death of one patient. Those kinds of practices may be equally egregious in the results and impact they cause, and my resolution would be broader and more inclusive and fairer not only to those victims' families--and I want to express my sympathy to the families of those victims who were so deeply and irreparably harmed by Gosnell--but also with the families and victims of other kinds of medical malpractice and to respect the States that have an independent responsibility to ensure adherence with those standards of care and ought to have the ability to enforce their laws, which might be impeded by the resolution that has been offered by my friend from Utah.

Again, I renew my objection. Let me say, my two colleagues have made excellent closing arguments to the Gosnell jury. I would expect that to be the case since they are two well-trained, excellent lawyers. But the Gosnell case is over. It is done. He has been sentenced--or he will be shortly. These kinds of abuses ought to arouse outrage wherever and whenever they occur. Anytime, anywhere a doctor endangers a patient in violating standards of care, we ought to condemn them. So I urge my colleagues to join

me in the outrage I feel about the dentist in Oklahoma or the endoscopy center in Nevada or the nursing home director in California. In any case where prosecution is appropriate, an investigation should be done properly by State authorities who have jurisdiction, and they should condemn such practices. I ask them to join me in resolution S. 134.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the New Columbia Admissions Act, a bill that seeks to end a longstanding injustice and give full voting representation to the residents of the District of Columbia. More than 600,000 Americans live in Washington, D.C. and bear all the responsibilities of citizenship, yet currently have no vote in either chamber of Congress. This legislation paves the way for the creation of a 51st state from the populated portions of Washington, D.C., giving the citizens who live here in our nation's capital the voice they deserve in our national government.

Washington is not just a collection of government offices, monuments and museums; it is home to more than half a million people who work, study, raise families, and start businesses. These citizens serve in the military and die for our country just like the residents of the 50 States. They pay Federal taxes just like other Americans in fact they pay more per capita than residents of most states. But when it comes to having a voice in our Congress, suddenly these citizens do not count.

We must ask ourselves how we would feel in their place; I think most of us would quickly decide that this is not how we would want to be treated. In fact, the United States is the only democracy in the world that treats the citizens of its capital city this way. We are the only democracy, it is sad to say, that denies voting representation to the people who live in its capital city.

People have been trying to fix this injustice for almost as long as it has existed. In 1801, just one year after residents of the new Federal capital city were denied the vote, a prominent city resident began arguing for a constitutional amendment to give voting rights to residents of the District. Two years later, a House member introduced a bill to ``retrocede,'' or give back to Maryland and Virginia, the land that was ceded to create the District. Support for the proposal was based in large part on the political injustice of denying representation to the residents of the capital city. Even some opponents reportedly argued that the District might be granted Congressional representation once its population became more substantial, a threshold that clearly seems to have been met by a city of more than half a million people, a number comparable to several states. In 1978, the House and Senate approved a constitutional amendment to give the District full voting representation in Congress that was ratified by 16 states, but the measure died when it failed to win support from the required \3/4\ of the States within 7 years. More recently, in 2009, the Senate approved a bill to give the District a voting representative in the House.

The bill I am introducing today creates a path for the District of Columbia to become the State of ``New Columbia'' with full voting rights in Congress. Under this bill, a federal district called Washington, D.C. would still remain under the control of Congress, as the Constitution mandates. But it would be a smaller area encompassing the White House, the Capitol, the Supreme Court and the National Mall, an area where few people actually live. The rest of the current District of Columbia, diverse neighborhoods that are home to more than half a million U.S. citizens no different from the ones you and I and our colleagues come here to represent would become a new State provided that its residents vote to set that in motion.

The bill is similar to proposals offered by Senator Edward Kennedy in the early 1990s, and by my former colleague Senator Joseph Lieberman in December 2012. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District's sole, non-voting representative in the House who has worked tirelessly for voting rights for the residents of the city, has introduced a companion House bill.

I believe we keep proposing and debating different solutions to the injustice imposed on District residents because we know in our hearts that the situation we have now and have tolerated for so long is not right. It is familiar, but it is not fair and not consistent with the values we all share as Americans. It is incumbent upon those of us who enjoy the right and the privilege of full voting rights to take up the cause of our fellow citizens here in the District of Columbia and find a solution.

Earlier this week, we celebrated the birth of Martin Luther King, Jr. and his legacy of working to bring equality and justice to all Americans. It is in that spirit that I introduce this bill, with my colleagues Senators Barbara Boxer, Richard Durbin and Patty Murray. I hope we can work together to find a way to bring the same rights to the residents of the District of Columbia that all of us living in the 50 states cherish so much.