John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I guess I have to give my friend, the Senator from New York, credit. Once he made his bed, he decided he had better lie in it. Democrats made a risky gamble when they bet against the American people in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that we passed in December. No Democrat supported it--none--and now I think they are beginning to worry that it is actually working. Otherwise, I don't understand why the Democratic leader, the minority leader of the U.S. Senate, would say: We need to raise your taxes because we can spend your money better than you can. I guess he means that we also need to eliminate the doubling of the standard deduction, which makes sure that the first $24,000 earned by a married couple is tax-free--zero tax rate. I guess he thinks we ought to repeal the doubling of the child tax credit. As much as he rails about corporations, the fact is, what we did on the business side with taxes has made the United States more competitive globally. It is the same argument that he, President Obama in a State of the Union speech, and the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Wyden--it is the same argument they made that we embraced. We got a little more aggressive than they did in terms of the rate. We lowered it, not to 25 percent, as Senator Wyden had proposed, but to 21 percent; thus, we made ourselves roughly average in the industrialized world, making America more competitive. We were seeing people going overseas and investing because they had better tax rates than we had here in America. Who owns the stock? You have heard the Democratic leader talk about stock buybacks. He said: Well, these corporations are using this money to buy their own stock back. Do you know who owns stock in America? I am not sure of the exact percentage, but a huge percentage of it is owned by retirement funds and pension funds of firefighters, teachers, and others who want to see that their retirement is not only safe but also grows. What they have seen since the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was passed in December is the value of their retirement funds go through the roof. The stock market is at an all-time high--or thereabouts. It has set huge records. I know our friends on the other side of the aisle are worried because they made a dangerous gamble against the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, but the fact is, all the polling is showing that as people are seeing the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act actually being implemented, they are seeing more money in their paychecks. Because the withholding tables were changed to reflect lower tax rates, people are seeing more take-home pay. And as the economy continues to grow, there is going to be more competition for workers. Unemployment claims are the lowest they have been since 1969. As there is more competition for workers, that is going to force employers to pay more wages, so everyone is going to benefit from a growing economy. Sometimes I think our colleagues across the aisle have settled for too little. They settled for a stagnant economy, frozen wages, and an America that could no longer compete in the world when it came to attracting business and investment. We changed that. Every single person on this side of the aisle--all 51 of us--voted for the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Everyone on that side of the aisle voted against it. I think the Democratic leader now is getting pretty worried, especially leading up to the November elections, when a number of his colleagues on that side of the aisle are going to have to go to voters and say: I voted against your pay raise; I voted against take- home pay; I voted against increasing the standard deduction; I voted against an increase in the child tax credit. I think they are pretty worried about it; otherwise, I couldn't imagine the Democratic leader coming out here and saying what he said today. He said: Well, we want to raise your taxes so we can spend it. I think the folks I represent--the 28 million Texans I represent--would say: No thank you. We want to spend our own hard-earned money the way we see fit, not send it to Washington to see it go into some black hole, and then we will not know what we actually benefited from. I didn't necessarily intend to come to the floor to talk about that, but I couldn't resist responding briefly to my friend's comments. Mr. President, I do want to congratulate the senior Senator from Idaho for a moment, Mr. Crapo, the chairman of the Banking Committee, on the bill that is pending on the floor. He has done stellar work to bring this Dodd-Frank reform bill to the floor, one that will release some of those shackles on small community banks and credit unions. They were the victims of overkill when it came to regulation under the name of Dodd-Frank, which was designed to address Wall Street and the excesses of Wall Street. But as I have told my friends who are community bankers and members of credit unions back home: You weren't the target, but you were the collateral damage. We are going to remedy that on a bipartisan basis, thanks to the Banking Committee, its chairman, Senator Crapo, and our colleagues. Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act Mr. President, this morning, I want to mention another area where the Banking Committee and Senator Crapo are showing great leadership, and that is on a bill that will improve the CFIUS review process. Let me unpack that. CFIUS is the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. That acronym stands for the interagency body led by the Treasury Department, in this case by Secretary Mnuchin. It polices foreign investment in the United States for national security risks. The Banking Committee has held two hearings on the bipartisan bill that I introduced with the senior Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, which is called the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act. I hope the committee will have a markup on that bill soon. The House Financial Services Committee has also been holding hearings on our bill, including one last week, and has more planned in the future. The time to act is now because this process is outdated, and the committee's jurisdiction remains too narrow. Let me explain why that is so important. This review process was not originally designed, and is now insufficient, to address today's rapidly evolving threats to our national security. Perhaps most alarmingly, many transactions that could pose a national security risk often go unreviewed altogether. In particular, China has proved adept at cheating the current CFIUS system. It exploits gaps and creatively structures investments in U.S. businesses to evade scrutiny. They literally have been vacuuming up startup technology firms that are going to produce the next cutting- edge technology that would give America a competitive advantage against the rest of the world when it comes to our national security, and they are thinking strategically in the long term by showing up as investors in some of these businesses and flying beneath the radar screen. They are unreviewed under the current CFIUS process. To circumvent review, China will often pressure U.S. companies into arrangements like joint ventures and coerce them into handing over their technology and their know-how. This enables Chinese companies to acquire and then replicate U.S.-bred capabilities on their own soil, destroying jobs here in America in the process, as well as our industrial base. Many of these technologies have a direct military application, and my bill, cosponsored with Senator Feinstein, addresses this problem. As we speak, China is turning our own technology and know-how against us and seeking to erase our national security advantage little by little. They are doing it relentlessly and strategically. This massive technology transfer, which occurs out of the public eye and is achieved through China's deliberate campaign of evasion of our security safeguards, must end. We don't have to look very far to see how technology is increasingly the realm where U.S. national security interests and China's economic and military interests lie in tension with one another or, in the worst case, they actually collide. It is happening almost every day. Consider the widely reported news this week that CFIUS--the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States--has ordered a full investigation into a foreign bid to take over a prominent American computer chip manufacturer. That company, Qualcomm, plays a leading role in supporting U.S. telecommunications infrastructure, especially by doing the research and investment of 5G technology, which is important for autonomous vehicles and the internet, increasing the use of cellular technology for what is transforming our lives. It supports our national security through classified work in the Federal Government. The cause for alarm is that the deal is a hostile takeover, and the consequences of the takeover could put China in the driver's seat for the next generation of mobile technology. Chinese companies, beholden as they are to the Chinese Communist Party, would fill any void that is left once the deal is complete, much to the detriment of our national security and our economy. We are still gathering information, and not all the facts are known yet, but I want to stress that we need to do our due diligence. We need to have a comprehensive review of this hostile takeover. In my view, CFIUS, with Secretary Mnuchin leading at the Treasury Department, is right to be extremely cautious and to investigate this matter further. Today there is a growing recognition that foreign investors are getting more sophisticated in accessing our technology. As this week's developments show, we can't be naive in thinking that this isn't happening or that it is not a clear and present danger or naive about State-owned enterprises in countries like China, where there is no such thing as the private and public sector. The government controls everything because that is the nature of their Communist system. The Chinese Government has plans to dominate mobile technology, quantum computing, artificial intelligence, and other industries; that much is clear. One tactic is to force American companies to transfer high-tech industrial capabilities to China's homegrown players in exchange for the U.S. firms gaining access to the Chinese market. That, too, is well documented. But the quid pro quos don't stop there. They aren't even confined to the technology space. Recently, there have been calls to investigate China's involvement in American college campuses through the so-called Confucius Institutes. These institutes are proxies for the Chinese Communist Party. They offer schools financial benefits in exchange to set up shop in close proximity to U.S. researchers and students whose views they attempt to influence for what are essentially manipulative propaganda campaigns-- ones that conveniently whitewash over the Communist regime's less flattering attributes and their troubling history of human rights abuses and belligerence in places like the South China Sea. I know our colleague, the junior Senator from Florida, Mr. Rubio, who cochairs the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, has called on schools that host Confucius Institutes to end those partnerships, and he is right to do so. Steady and stealthy forms of information warfare should be a perpetual concern, especially when none other than Gen. Joe Dunford, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said that by 2025, China will pose the greatest threat to U.S. national security of any nation. The bipartisan bill Senator Feinstein and I have introduced is an important piece of our overall response to this threat. It has been endorsed by the administration and is supported by the current Secretaries of Defense and Treasury, as well as the Attorney General. Let's not hold this up any longer. I congratulate the chairman of the Banking Committee for the good work on the bill that is on the floor. I thank him for his leadership and willingness to work with us on this important CFIUS reform bill. I look forward to the upcoming markup of this bill in the committee soon. Fix NICS Bill Finally, Mr. President, let me say that every day that goes by since the shooting in Parkland, FL, on February 14--every day that goes by, we are distracted by other concerns, and our memories dim of the terrible mass tragedy that occurred at that school, the shootings that occurred there that day. I know the Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, was at Stoneman Douglas High School yesterday for the students' first full, normal schoolday, 3 weeks after the shooting. She said it was a sobering moment--and I am sure it was--speaking to the students and teachers, who still flinch remembering the sounds of bullets in the hallways of their school. Fourteen students died, along with one teacher, the school's athletic director, and a coach who was shielding students with his body so they would not be hit. That is the thing about these events--these stories make us sad and angry and sometimes numb, all at the same time, but from these stories, from these tragedies, heroes do emerge. We saw one of those heroes last fall at Sutherland Springs, TX, where people were gathered to worship at a small Baptist church just outside of San Antonio. A man who prefers not to be recognized grabbed his rifle and ran to the church that was under attack, and he saved lives in the process by preventing the gunman from continuing the carnage. That is a case of somebody taking an AR-15 out of his gun safe. He is a certified shooting instructor. He came to the aid of people who were defenseless and who were being slaughtered at that church, and he saved many lives. The person who was shooting at that church in Sutherland Springs was a convicted felon, and he was, under existing law, legally permitted to purchase or possess firearms. That is why, when I came back to Washington after visiting Sutherland Springs at the next Sunday service, I introduced a bill to fix the holes in the national instant background check system--to make sure that shooters like the one at Sutherland Springs could not legally purchase firearms. Part of the reason I did that was because after I talked to Pastor Frank Pomeroy, who lost his daughter Annabelle in the massacre, I promised myself I would do everything in my power to prevent similar events from occurring in the future. I did the same after I spoke with a man by the name of Andrew Pollack, who lost his daughter Meadow in Florida last month. I met Andrew last week, along with Senator Rubio, who I know has been similarly moved to take action. After having these difficult conversations, I can't tell my colleagues how disappointed I am that the Senate has done nothing-- nothing--to prevent them from happening in the future. We can't even tell fathers and mothers that we have taken the first step toward ending some of the violence that plagues our country, that puts bullet holes in our classrooms and spills blood inside some of our most sacred places. The bill that I introduced to fix the National Instant Criminal Background Check System is called Fix NICS. That is what it does. It fixes the holes in the background check system so that people like Mr. Kelley, the shooter at Sutherland Springs, could not legally purchase a firearm. I am grateful to my colleagues who have cosponsored that bill. It includes the majority leader and the minority leader, Senator Schumer, as well as Senator Murphy and Senator Blumenthal from Connecticut and all of our close to 60 bipartisan cosponsors. They believe that what the bill tries to do, which is to fix our broken background check system, is important and will save lives and will keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons. Recently, we saw that the bill could make a real difference in places like Ohio. There, it was reported that dozens of courts are failing to upload conviction records into the FBI National Instant Criminal Background Check System and that this failure could result in convicted felons purchasing guns. This bill would help alleviate that problem. A similar glitch is one that allowed the gunman in Sutherland Springs, of course, to purchase the firearm he used when the Air Force failed to upload his conviction records into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, as they were obligated to do. The law requires that these convictions be uploaded, and now we need to make sure those laws are enforced. Sixty is how many votes we need to pass this legislation in the Senate, and I am confident, were that bill to be brought to the floor and we had a vote on it, it would actually get many, many more--close to unanimity--here in the Senate. Last week we tried to get an agreement to have a debate on the bill followed by an up-or-down vote. Sadly and inexplicably, the minority leader blocked that agreement. I don't think the minority leader opposes the bill--he is actually a cosponsor of it--but he is in a bind. He is being pressured by a handful of those in his conference who say that this is not sufficient. I know people on both sides of the aisle would like to do more, but I want to make sure we don't fail to do anything at all or that we don't end up doing nothing. Many of these Members have indicated that they want votes on other measures. Frankly, I would be fine with that, but let's make sure we don't leave here another day emptyhanded by failing to take action on the one consensus piece of legislation that would be supported by an overwhelming majority of the Senate. I would like to be able to report good news to Pastor Pomeroy and his wife Sherri. I am sure my colleagues from Florida would like to do the same for the shocked families who are still grieving in Parkland. We need to send a message to families that when they drop their children off at school and when they go to church to worship, they will be safe--or safer than they would be if we fail to act. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, listening to my friend from New York--and he is my friend--we have worked together on a number of projects, even though we have diametrically opposed views on many policy prescriptions. To listen to him talk, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was a bad thing because it took money from the Federal Government and let the people who have earned it keep it and spend it the way they see fit. I know they made a bad bet. They bet that it would fail. They bet that we would not get the votes to pass the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, but we did, and the American people and American families are the beneficiaries of that. I have come to this floor time and again, telling those stories, most recently about a plumbing company in Cleburne, TX, that has seen the benefits in terms of bonuses and increased pay, more take-home pay, along with the lowest claims for jobless benefits since 1969--the lowest claims for jobless benefits since 1969. But when we come to the floor, our Democratic colleagues, who bet against the American economy and this resurgence, the reawakening of this great economic engine known as the American economy--they bet against it. They are still sticking with the same old story, regardless of the facts. I know the American people know better. They have noticed in their paychecks starting in February--because the tax tables were rewritten by the IRS--that they actually have more take-home pay. I have family members who are ecstatic about that. One of my daughters called and just couldn't be more excited, and I know that is happening to families all across the country. I guess it is just one reason we have two political parties-- Democrats and Republicans--because while we may agree in some sense on the outcome, we certainly don't agree on the means to achieve that outcome. They are the party of Big Government, higher taxes, and more spending. We are the party of smaller government, effective government, one that provides essential services to the American people, like defending our Nation and maintaining peace around the world, but we believe in the individual. We believe the people who earn the money ought to be able to keep more of it and spend it as they see fit, and they believe that government ought to keep more of that and spend it as Washington sees fit. That is the reason we have two political parties, and people have to make their choices, and they do each election. Yesterday, though, Mr. President, we voted to proceed to a very important bipartisan bill that would provide relief for small and midsized banks and credit unions across the country. This was an important step in what has been a long time coming. You might ask: Why do we care about providing regulatory relief for banks and credit unions, especially the smaller ones that are in our communities? Well, that is where people go when they want to buy a house and they need a mortgage, when they need some startup money for a new business, where they need to go borrow money, for example, to buy seed and equipment to plant a crop. If you are in the agriculture sector, that is where they get access to credit, and that is why it is so important. Unfortunately, since the Dodd-Frank law passed in 2010, we have seen a lot of that access to credit, particularly among small and medium- sized banks and credit unions, dry up because what they had to do was hire more people, but not for the purpose of making more loans. They hired more people because they needed to comply with the redtape and regulatory burden imposed by Washington. We are peeling that back; we are reversing that--not for the big banks. The regulations stay in place, but for community banks and small credit unions, we are peeling that back so that it is a more rational and reasonable regulatory regime. Ever since the law known as Dodd-Frank was passed in 2010, community and regional banks have been trying to get their voices heard. They have been clamoring to get lawmakers to understand that their businesses are much different from the titans of Wall Street that Dodd- Frank went after, following the financial crisis. Usually, when I am talking to the community bankers and the credit unions from my State, I say: You didn't cause the great recession of 2008. You didn't cause the great financial crisis, but you are the collateral damage. And they nod their heads sadly. These banks want us to know they are from Main Street, not from Wall Street, and they want the rules to reflect that fact. After yesterday's vote, we finally started on a pathway not only to listening to their concerns but also to acting on them. Dodd-Frank, the regulatory legislation that was passed in 2010, was almost 250 pages long. It required more than 10 Federal agencies to write more than 400 new rules, imposing some 27,000 mandates on financial institutions of every size, from large to small. In doing so, Dodd-Frank's rules imposed billions of dollars in new costs. Much of the weight fell on the backs of banks and credit unions that posed little systemic risk to the overall economy, and they have had a much harder time than Wall Street firms complying with excessive and complex reporting requirements. Here is the irony. It is actually the big banks and big financial institutions that have the heft and the money to be able to comply with all of this new spider's web of regulations. It is the smaller community banks and credit unions that can't afford it, so they have been going out of business or being gobbled up in mergers by the big banks. This isn't what Congress intended in 2010. That wasn't the focus, but that is the consequence. As the Senate majority leader said yesterday, based on one survey, compliance costs--those are the costs of dealing with the redtape in the financial sector--have gone up by 24 percent. What has happened as compliance costs have increased? Well, banks have closed in small towns in rural America, for one, which has led to a growing number of places with no bank branches at all. In Texas, for example, we lost about 165 bank charters, a 26-percent reduction. In smaller rural areas that lacked multiple options to access credit, this is a serious problem. It is one of the many issues this bill we are voting on this week attempts to solve. As the Wall Street Journal noted, the bill mainly ``eases administrative burdens'' on community banks. These banks incredibly ``make up about 98 percent of financial institutions, but [hold] only 15 percent of [U.S. banks' total] assets.'' Our colleague, the senior Senator from Idaho, the chairman of the Banking Committee, has spearheaded this effort, which is called the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act. I heard him say yesterday that it does all three of those things. It helps stimulate economic growth; it provides regulatory relief; and it protects consumers. We all appreciate the tremendous amount of hard work he has poured into the difficult and elaborate negotiations. His leadership has been indispensable. As Senator Crapo has pointed out, the reforms in the bill will rightsize existing regulations on community and regional banks and credit unions while ensuring consumer safety at the same time. Anyone who lives and works in the real world knows that a one-size-fits-all approach just about never works, and banking and the financial sectors are no exception. Dodd-Frank never worked as intended, but it was especially disastrous for smaller financial institutions that shouldn't be subject to many of its provisions, which weren't meant for them in the first place. The bill, therefore, will relieve the burden on small and midsized businesses that are being treated unfairly. Again, it is not so much the banks and the credit unions that we are worried about; it is the people they lend money to, who need access to credit to live their lives, to build their business. That is who we are mainly concerned about. Surprisingly and gratefully, this bill is supported by Democrats who passed Dodd-Frank in the first place. This bill is supported by Democrats and Republicans, as well as the Trump administration and top Federal Reserve officials. This is actually a little bit of a bright light in an otherwise, sometimes, dark atmosphere here in Washington, DC, when it comes to dealing with some of these problems. This actually will help solve some real-world problems, and it is supported by Republicans and Democrats. One specific objective is to raise the threshold at which banks face the stricter Dodd-Frank oversight, but it will also--and I want to emphasize this--keep in place requirements for much larger financial institutions, like rigorous stress testing, for example. As I said, negotiations have been going on for this legislation for years; I think it is 4 years to be exact. But because of the resistance of the former administration, the Obama administration, as well as the former Senate majority leader, Senator Reid, we couldn't get these reforms passed before this week--and next week, if necessary. This is a new day, a new administration, a new leadership, and we are making progress. In the meantime, though, American families and businesses lost out. Some farmers and ranchers, looking to actually buy what they needed to bring in the crops so that they could earn a living, couldn't get the loans they needed. Young people couldn't find a mortgage at a price they could afford and purchase their starter home. In Texas, bankers confirmed that these reported difficulties are real. They recently signed a letter that urged the Senate to seize this opportunity and to pass this bill as quickly as possible. As the Independent Bankers Association of Texas has pointed out, community banks neither participated in nor profited from the excesses and bad behavior that precipitated the financial crisis, yet they are paying a disproportionately high price in attempting to deal with the aftermath. That just about sums it up. Another group from my State, the Texas Bankers Association, has said that they are pleased to see this bill has finally been brought to the floor for a vote. That group represents about 450 banking institutions in my State. Sometimes we see the credit unions and the banks as rivals. They often see themselves as rivals for the same line of business. But the banks and credit unions agree. The credit unions in my State say that passing this bill would allow them to more fully serve their members' needs, whether that be providing mortgages or small business loans, instead of spending so many hours and so much money trying to deal with the redtape--and to what purpose? It doesn't help grow the economy. It doesn't help access to credit. It is really regulatory overkill that we are trying to deal with here. As the majority leader said yesterday, there are a ``wide diversity of views on Dodd-Frank. But there is widespread agreement that we should not continue allowing'' unintended consequences to wreak havoc on community banks and small credit unions. I hope all of our colleagues will join me in supporting the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act. It is good for American families. It is good for communities across our country that are underserved and for people who lack access to credit. It just makes sense. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, ever since President Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act on December 22, we have seen how one law can literally transform the economic landscape across the country. The New York Times has reported that there is a wave of optimism surging among job creators. Let me just footnote that the New York Times was certainly a skeptic as to what the impact of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act would be, but they now report that a wave of optimism is surging among job creators. Since January 2017, 2.3 million jobs have been added in the United States, and unemployment is at a 17-year low. U.S. weekly jobless claims are at their lowest since 1969. Many people who thought that stagnant growth and flat wages were the new normal have been surprised--and maybe a better word is ``gratified''--to see what the impact of this policy has been on their take-home pay, on their confidence in their future, and on investments and new jobs. It is pretty exciting. In 2017, average unemployment rates decreased in 32 States according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Mr. President, 186,000 manufacturing jobs have been added over the last 12 months. I know the President and all of us are concerned about manufacturing moving offshore because the cost of doing business in some places around the world is much lower than it is in the United States, but we should all be excited about the fact that 186,000 manufacturing jobs have been added in the last 12 months. As I mentioned, consumer confidence is now at its highest level since November 2000, and real disposable incomes have seen their biggest gain since April 2015. According to a National Federation of Independent Business survey, more small businesses than ever now believe it is a good time to expand. This is a very important part of the equation, and I will say more about small businesses in just a moment. In Texas, where I am from, a survey of Houston businesses found that 2 out of 3 companies there will increase hiring and wages, while nearly 9 out of 10 said they expected to see an increase in their revenue. The head economist of the bank that conducted the survey didn't waste any words, saying that ``something real is happening in the economy.'' I agree. The positive gains from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act are real and undeniable. Recently, my office heard from one of my constituents by the name of Judy Patton. Judy lives in Cleburne, TX, which is roughly an hour from Dallas, down U.S. Highway 67. Judy owns a plumbing company called P&P. She said that her plumbing company will be giving both raises and bonuses to all of its employees this year because of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and she just wanted to let us know that she appreciates what we are doing. Well, all of us who have the honor of representing constituents here in the Senate hear from our constituents from time to time, and they don't always give us an ``attaboy'' or words of encouragement. Frequently they say ``Can't you all do better'' or ``You have done this, and I don't like that much.'' So it is nice to hear from people like Judy the encouragement that she has given us for the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. I can say, for my part, to Judy that we are thrilled you decided to pay the savings forward to other folks in the Cleburne area. Plumbers are a good example of the untold stories on tax reform. Here in Washington, we are not always conscious of the ripple effect--the way in which the changes we have enacted affect small businesses and individual lives. Judy reminds us of the positive impacts that are felt all over. It is not just the big players, the Fortune 500 companies with thousands of employees and operations around the world; it is small businesses like P&P in Cleburne, too, that are busy helping out those small communities and making lives better. Those examples are just as important as those in the Fortune 500. Fix NICS Bill Mr. President, another issue I will continue to be focused on concerns a bill that I cosponsored with the junior Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Murphy, called Fix NICS. The President, when we were over at the White House last week, said: Well, maybe you need a better name for the bill. I had to explain that NICS was the National Instant Criminal Background Check System and that we believed it was broken and needed to be fixed; hence the name ``Fix NICS.'' But I take the President's point--maybe we ought to do a better job branding what it is we are selling here, and what we are selling is something vitally important that will save lives. The Fix NICS bill will fix holes in the background check system that is utilized when firearms are purchased by individuals in the United States. As we know, when you go buy a gun at a gun store, there is a background check that has to be conducted. That is current law. When federally licensed firearm dealers like McBride's Guns, Inc., in Austin, TX, that I patronize--when you go in to buy a new shotgun to go bird hunting or something like that, they will run a background check. Of course they ask you to answer the questions, but the problem we discovered in Sutherland Springs is that not everybody is performing their responsibility and uploading the information that would show that people who are purchasing guns are lying on their background check and are legally disqualified from purchasing those firearms. For many, the aftereffects of the shooting last month at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL, still resonate--I know that is true for all of us--and the pain and frustration aren't going away. I always worry, though, after one of these events occurs, that given the relentless carpet-bombing of news and other information that we all sustain here in Washington, in the Nation's Capital, it is too easy to begin to lose sight of our objective to make things different and to improve outcomes when it comes to terrible events like this. Sometimes we get distracted and we move on to other topics, but we can't allow ourselves to do that. We have heard from Stoneman Douglas students themselves who are angry and deserve to be so. Last week, the junior Senator from Florida, Mr. Rubio, and I met with Andrew Pollack, the father of a victim who lost her life at Stoneman Douglas. Mr. Pollack's daughter isn't coming back, sadly, but the least we can do is to prevent others like her from losing their lives in similar incidents in the future. I wanted to tell Andrew that steps have already been taken, and I wanted to say: This will not happen again. Your daughter and other future victims have pushed us, finally, to change. But I couldn't do that, not with a straight face, and I still can't. Here we are almost a week after the meeting and we have taken zero steps forward, even though the Fix NICS bill is now cosponsored by 50 Senators on a bipartisan basis. The majority leader, a Republican, and the minority leader, a Democrat, are cosponsors of the bill. Senator Murphy from Connecticut and Senator Cornyn from Texas--we are the principal cosponsors of the bill. We agree about very little in other areas of public policy, but we agree in this case that this is simply too important of an issue and that we really need to demonstrate our competence and to try to regain the public's confidence in our ability to actually function in a way that will save lives in the future. Well, unfortunately, much like the DACA debate, people want to make this bill a Christmas tree, trying to decorate it with other legislative ornaments that look nice to their political base but stand no chance of passing this body or the House. I think we have to call that what it is--political posturing. It is not about getting a result. It is not about passing a bill that will actually improve the background check system to prevent people like the shooter at Sutherland Springs, for example, from actually purchasing a firearm by lying on the background check. Thankfully, Andrew Pollack sees all this with clear eyes. He has said to me and Senator Rubio that we need to focus on what is achievable. He, himself, is focused on school safety, and I certainly support that. I know my colleague Senator Hatch has introduced a bill that is bipartisan and widely supported by all sides, which I support. Another reform that is achievable today, if we were allowed to vote on it, is Fix NICS--to fix our broken background check system. We should start with what is achievable and what will actually save lives, and that describes the Fix NICS bill. It will help prevent dangerous individuals with criminal convictions and history of mental illness from buying firearms. This bill could easily pass the Senate. It has already passed the House. The President would sign it, as he told me when he called me last Thursday night. He said he supports the Fix NICS bill. There are other things he would like to do. There are other suggestions people have made, but we need to do what is achievable, and we need to do that as soon as we possibly can. Several publications have endorsed the Fix NICS bill, saying it is a commonsense proposal that is a ``test of [Democrats'] sincerity.'' Do our colleagues really want to work together to prevent further shootings at churches and schools? Voting on this bill would be one way to do it. The New York Times calls Fix NICS a ``rare piece of gun legislation that has no meaningful opposition and that has bipartisan support.'' That is one of the most maddening things about working here in Washington, DC--when there are bills that have no meaningful opposition and have bipartisan support and they still don't go anywhere. The Dallas Morning News said the bill ``keeps deadly weapons away from people already prohibited from owning them.'' The San Antonio Express News calls Fix NICS a ``relatively easy place to start.'' That would be wonderful if it were true in the Senate. The Express News calls the bill ``narrow'' and ``necessary.'' I am not suggesting it is a panacea, but why don't we want to take the first step in the direction of passing legislation, which essentially enforces existing law and one that will save lives? If the shooter at Sutherland Springs had run into the FBI background check system in the Air Force, in that case, and they uploaded his felony conviction as well as his conviction for domestic violence, where he fractured the skull of his infant stepson--if they had uploaded that information into the background check system, he would not have been able to legally purchase a firearm, but he did purchase those firearms, and he used them to walk around a little Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs one Sunday morning when people were worshiping inside. He didn't go inside at first. He shot through the wall. It wasn't a stone building. It wasn't a brick building. It was made out of wood. It was a simple little Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs. People were gathered to worship, and 26 of them were gunned down. He walked into the church, after he shot dozens of rounds through the building, and he went inside and shot them and killed them--26 people. There were 20 more wounded. Fortunately, they did not die from their wounds. I believe, with all my heart, that those 26 people would be alive today if we made sure our broken background check system worked by enforcing current law and passing a bill like Fix NICS. I believe that would have saved their lives, and it would have stopped the change that the 20 who were wounded are now going to experience as a result of their life-altering injuries. I told myself, at that time, I am not going to come back to that small community and look those families in the face unless I have done everything humanly possible to change the outcome in the future. How can any of us, in good conscience, look our constituents in the face, those who lose their loved ones to incidents like this--how can we look them in the face, in good conscience, and say we have done our duty, when we failed to act where we could on an achievable bill, with no opposition and broad bipartisan support? The Waco Tribune says: ``Second Amendment advocates who regularly stress the need to enforce existing gun laws rather than forging new laws should welcome'' the bill. This bill is supported by the whole political spectrum when it comes to guns and the Second Amendment, from the NRA to people who say, well, they really have reservations about law-abiding citizens owning guns even for their own defense or for recreation or hunting purposes. The whole political spectrum agrees this is a commonsense, achievable bill, and so do 49 colleagues in the Senate, both Republicans and Democrats. I have said it before, but I am here to say it again: Let's pass Fix NICS now. Andrew Pollack and the rest of the Nation are waiting for a sign that we are serious about preventing wanton acts of violence that should not and cannot continue. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this week, we will be voting on an important piece of bipartisan legislation that recently passed out of the Senate Banking Committee, led by our colleague, Chairman Mike Crapo. The bill is called the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act. The purpose of the bill is to rightsize the onerous regulations that are currently imposed on community and independent banks and that stifle their ability to loan money to people who need access to credit in order to start a business or to grow a small business. Under the current law famously known as Dodd-Frank, these smaller banks are often treated just like the largest banks and financial institutions in our economy. That doesn't make any sense at all. Main Street, we need to remind some of our colleagues, is not Wall Street. The bill would make changes to reflect that important distinction. I can't tell you how many of my small bankers in Texas have told me they had to hire additional personnel, not to make more loans, just to comply with the onerous overregulation coming out of Washington, DC. Unfortunately, we lost over 2,000 banks nationwide since the end of 2010. Two thousand banks have gone out of business, either as a result of a merger with a larger bank that could sustain the additional cost of complying with these regulations or those that have just given up and said: We can't cut it because of the costs, and we are hanging up our spurs. In Texas, 165 bank charters have vanished during that same timeframe--a 26-percent reduction. Like I said, some of the decline is due to mergers with larger banks, but there have also been a number of bank failures. We all heard about too big to fail, but some institutions were deemed essentially too small to save. They were the ones left behind and forgotten under Dodd-Frank. Because of the regulatory burdens, some small banks said enough is enough and opted to get out of the lending business altogether. You know who ends up paying the price and who ends up getting hurt? It is the married couple who wants to borrow money to buy their first home or, as I said earlier, a business that wants to expand and hire more people. Those are the people who ultimately get hurt. In this bill we are considering this week, we are trying to change that situation. No less than former Congressman Barney Frank--the Democratic author of the original law--has emphasized the point that we need now to remember: The bill we are voting on keeps in place rules and regulations that were imposed on large Wall Street banks after the financial crisis. In other words, the big banks on Wall Street were the ones that helped contribute to the financial crisis, and they are the ones that will continue to be regulated under Dodd-Frank, but the community and regional banks that were, in essence, the collateral damage to the great recession of 2008, following the big financial crisis, will finally see some needed and welcomed relief. Rigorous stress testing of large financial institutions will continue. Congressman Frank has said it would be ``wholly inaccurate'' to claim otherwise. So when some try to distort the bill's purpose and the provisions in the days ahead, I think it is important to keep that in mind and don't buy what they are selling. This bill will mostly, as I said, affect smaller community banks, which clearly don't fall under the same category as the titans of global finance. Last year, the Banking Committee solicited input from a broad array of stakeholders. The committee's idea was to say: Hey, all of you out there who greatly suffered under Dodd-Frank, how can we reduce the burdens you face? Those are the kind of questions all of us need to be asking back in our States. After extensive negotiations at all levels, and after hearing not just from financial entities great and small but also from consumer groups, the result is the bipartisan legislation we will soon consider on the Senate floor. The bill was formally introduced by a group of 10 Democrats and 10 Republicans. You don't get much more bipartisan than that. I know the Senator from Idaho, the chairman of the committee, has had productive discussions as well with my friend and fellow Texan Chairman Hensarling on the House side, who heads up the House Financial Services Committee. While the new provisions will help community banks, credit unions, as well as midsized and regional banks, they will also ensure that key consumer protections remain in place. Some of these protections will even increase for consumers who have fallen on hard financial times or who are victims of fraud. Veterans and seniors particularly will benefit. Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell has agreed that this commonsense bill will provide significant regulatory relief, and his predecessor, Janet Yellen, said it was a move in a good direction. While I would like to go further and provide additional relief from Dodd-Frank, we should nonetheless pass as much as we can and help America's local lenders build small businesses and strengthen our local communities. Let's get this bill--which is supported by a variety of stakeholders, including the Texas Independent Bankers Association--across the finish line this week. I wish to especially congratulate and thank our colleague from Idaho for all of his hard work, and I hope that all of us can emulate that hard work on a bipartisan basis to get this bill across the Senate floor and ultimately to the President for his signature.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this morning, I would like to start off speaking about a very important day in the history of my State, a day that inspires pride in the hearts of all those who were born in Texas. I am here to commemorate Texas Independence Day, which will be celebrated tomorrow. On March 2, 1836, Texas adopted its Declaration of Independence from Mexico. It is worth reading, and I would recommend it to anyone. This happened in the context of a struggle that is perhaps best remembered by the Battle of the Alamo, which laid some of the groundwork for Texans' eventual victory. On February 24 of that year, with his position under siege, an important figure named William Barret Travis wrote a letter, which I would like to read. He was a lieutenant colonel in the Texas Army, and during the battle, his fellow soldiers were outnumbered nearly 10 to 1 by the forces of the Mexican dictator Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna. Here in the Senate, both Republicans and Democrats have had the honor of reading the fabled Travis letter since 1961, when then-Texas Senator John Tower started that tradition. The letter was addressed ``To the People of Texas & All Americans in the World.'' Travis wrote: I am besieged, by a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna--I have sustained a continual Bombardment & cannonade for 24 hours & have not lost a man--The enemy has demanded a surrender at discretion, otherwise, the garrison are to be put to the sword, if the fort is taken--I have answered the demand with a cannon shot, & our flag still waves proudly from the walls--I shall never surrender or retreat. Then, I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism & everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid, with all dispatch--The enemy is receiving reinforcements daily & will no doubt increase to three or four thousand in four or five days. If this call is neglected, I am determined to sustain myself as long as possible & die like a soldier who never forgets what is due to his own honor & that of his country--Victory or Death. Signed, ``William Barret Travis.'' What a letter it is. It is a reminder for all of us that the 189 defenders of the Alamo lost their lives, but they did not die in vain. In fact, Texans wouldn't be around today if it weren't for them. The Battle of the Alamo bought precious time for the Texas revolutionaries, allowing General Sam Houston to maneuver his army into a position for the decisive victory at the Battle of San Jacinto. I would just note that I am honored to occupy the same Senate seat first occupied by Sam Houston when he became a U.S. Senator after Texas became annexed to the United States in 1845. With that victory at the Battle of San Jacinto, Texas became a sovereign nation--the Republic of Texas--for 9 years. For 9 years, it thrived as a separate nation, and then in 1845 it was annexed to the United States as the 28th State. Many Texas patriots who fought in the revolution went on to serve in the U.S. Congress--Sam Houston being one of them. Every single day, I am honored to have the opportunity to serve 28 million Texans--a chance I wouldn't have had without the sacrifices made by the brave men like William Barrett Travis 182 years ago.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, on another note, we heard some great news yesterday, in terms of our economy. Consumer confidence has jumped to a 17-year high. Optimism continues to surge as employers and payroll services across the country continue to implement the reforms to our Tax Code that we passed last December in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. What is more, the Treasury Department has now released the new withholding tables that went into effect earlier this month and reflect the changes passed as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. I got a call from someone close to me. I will leave it at that--I don't want to embarrass her--who said she opened her paycheck, and she had $240 more in her paycheck than she had in the previous month as a result of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. She didn't regard this as crumbs; she thought it would make a positive difference in her life. I think many Americans are having the same experience, seeing an increase in their take-home pay even in the month of February. As I said, for some, it is several hundred dollars extra each pay period, which is money that can be saved for a rainy day or invested for their retirement or future, or it could be used to pay for their child's education or to put new tires on their car. A married couple with two children, making about $75,000 a year, will see an estimated tax cut of approximately $2,000. That is just on the individual side. What we are seeing across the country is greater than just what is happening to single families and households, though. It is good to see at the micro level or the personal level, so to speak, what the impact is, but we also have to see the bigger picture in terms of our economy, the jobs created, the investment opportunities, and the way to grow our economy, and the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act has had a profound impact on that. So far, at least 417 companies have announced new investments, pay raises, bonuses, and charitable contributions. They have added new employee training and increased contributions to pensions and 401(k) retirement accounts. According to the White House, more than 4.4 million workers have been positively affected. It is no wonder the tax law is becoming more and more popular as people have learned more about it. Even the New York Times has had to agree that the public is learning to love the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act because of the positive impact on hard-working American lives. I see the wide-ranging effect of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in my State. Thanks to a competitive tax system, for example, Fort Worth- based companies like American Airlines paid large bonuses to their employees. AT&T, which is headquartered in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex, paid $1,000 to more than 200,000 men and women across the country who work for that company. Just as important, AT&T announced $1 billion in capital investments, which could create as many as 7,000 jobs. Texas also proves that the effects of tax reform are more than just a one-time-only impact. Waste Management, based in Houston, has already paid bonuses to drivers and landfill workers, but its CEO emphasized in an interview that the company will continue to spend money on its people beyond 2018. ExxonMobil, headquartered in Las Colinas in the Dallas area, will expand oil production in West Texas. Oncor, one of the largest investor-owned utilities in the State, will issue future refunds to customers on their utility bills. And Walmart, which is the largest employer in Texas, increased starting wages, expanded parental leave, and offered financial assistance to employees who choose to adopt. It is not just the big players, though; small businesses are doing the same thing. In Corpus Christi recently, I visited with the owners of Groomer's Seafood, who plan to expand distribution facilities serving thousands of restaurants statewide. American Bank in Corpus Christi is projecting that it can lend an additional $120 million as a result of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. That is money it can lend to small businesses to grow or start a new business. In San Antonio, my hometown, Cox Manufacturing will move up construction of a new 8,000- square-foot plant. In Amarillo, up in the Panhandle of Texas, Happy State Bank made news to go with its name, which is higher hourly pay. In Lumberton, TX, the women running an engineering company called Leak Sealers paid tax savings forward to employees, calling on other businesses to do the same. Our colleagues here in Washington who voted against the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act made a big mistake. I think they are beginning to realize that now, as the good news is rolling in. They have mostly kept quiet in terms of the criticism they lodged against the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act as we were debating it because they can't deny the facts, and they can't deny what is happening all across America--more take-home pay, more jobs, more money being invested and coming back home from overseas, and its generally being a very positive piece of legislation. Some have said--like Ms. Pelosi--that the tax cuts we passed just help job creators and give crumbs to others, but that is not true. Individuals will benefit from lower rates across the board. They will see an increase in the standard deduction and the child tax credit too. One overlooked part of the law will help bring investments and jobs to distressed communities, creating opportunity zones in every State. That is something our colleague Senator Scott championed and made sure was part of the bill. So, Mr. President, amidst our pain, anguish, and the horror of terrible incidents like that which occurred in Parkland, FL, there is good news to be found, but it is hard to focus on the good news when our constituents are looking at us and asking what we are going to do to make sure that the next potential mass shooting is prevented and that we have done everything in our power to try to stop it. I am not sure we will be able to stop all of them, but we can stop some of them. We can make sure that incidents like that which occurred in Sutherland Springs, TX--that somebody who is already illegally disqualified from purchasing a firearm doesn't get their hands on one. Well, we know what we have to do, and what I am asking all of our colleagues to do--including the Democratic leader, Senator Schumer, who is a cosponsor of Fix NICS, along with the Republican majority leader-- let's do this. Let's pass this bill. We could do it in one day, give people an opportunity to debate it and vote on it. If we keep looking for the perfect and make sure that the perfect is somehow the enemy of the good, we will end up with nothing. But we can't end up with nothing. America deserves something that will make a difference. The people in Parkland, FL, and in Sutherland Springs, TX, deserve something better, and I believe that Fix NICS is the best place to start. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk that is due for a second reading.

Mr. CORNYN. In order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to further proceedings.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, my colleague from Connecticut is here in the room and mentioned the bill we have been working on together, the Fix NICS bill. I want to remind all of us what the motivation was, at least on my part, for introducing this legislation and express my gratitude to the Senator from Connecticut, as well as the Democratic leader Senator Schumer, and others who have cosponsored this legislation. It was just a few short months ago when someone murdered 26 people worshipping in a small church just outside San Antonio in Sutherland Springs. He had purchased these firearms having lied on the background check when they asked him whether he was a convicted felon, whether he was honorably discharged from the military, and whether he had ever committed any domestic violence. He lied. If he had told the truth, he would have been prohibited from buying those firearms and perhaps--maybe, perhaps--he would have been dissuaded, slowed down, or perhaps would not have committed that terrible atrocity that day when 26 people lost their lives, and 20 more were injured. We have come to find out that the Air Force, which had convicted him of two of those offenses--domestic violence and the felony--failed to upload the information that was required in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. If they had, then he would not have gotten away with lying because the FBI background check system would have revealed the truth. I can state that I have the utmost confidence that if the Fix NICS law were in effect at the time he was attempting to purchase those firearms, in all likelihood, he would have been prohibited from purchasing those guns, and I would conclude from that, lives would have been saved, and the lives which were changed forever because of the terrible injuries that the other 20 received would not have been changed in such a terrible way. I told myself at the time that I cannot go to another church service--we went to the church that met in a tent just down the street from the place where the shooting took place a week after the shooting. The pastor and his wife who lost their teenage daughter were there. The wife was distraught, as you can imagine. The pastor summoned a power that is greater than human power to preach that day. It was emotional, it was inspirational, but it was a terrible tragedy. I told myself that day that I never wish to look another family in the face and say we failed to do everything that was in our power to prohibit or to stop something like that from happening again. Fix NICS, as I think people who are familiar with it understand, basically takes the laws that currently exist and makes sure it is applied so people like this shooter in Sutherland Springs can't lie their way out of it and get access to firearms and ruin people's lives in the process. I realize it may not be as comprehensive as some people would like. The problem is around here, if you ignore the things you can agree on and just look to fight about things you can't agree on, nothing ever happens--no problems ever get solved. I think a good place to start would be to pass this bipartisan Fix NICS piece of legislation. I hope our colleagues would consider it. I understand they have a different view on some aspects of guns, but what we had here was a catastrophic failure. We had a systemic failure. The school system failed, the mental health authorities failed, the local law enforcement, the Federal law enforcement failed. Our society failed to provide the tools to identify people who cry out, in essence, on social media like this young man did when he posted on YouTube essentially the threat he actually carried out, which was going to go shoot up a school. When that was referred to the FBI, they didn't follow up on it and nothing ever happened. Looking back on this particular young man, he was sending signals out on a regular basis that he was a ticking timebomb and people were going to get hurt and potentially die, as they did. I hope that rather than leave here this week with nothing to show for our efforts, we would at least agree to pass what enjoys broad bipartisan support and to perhaps prevent another shooting like that which occurred at Sutherland Springs. The President has made clear, thinking now about the Las Vegas shooting, that he believes bump stocks ought to be regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. I agree with that. So those are two things we could do, perhaps, that might save lives in the future, but to just say it is not enough, we ought to do more, and to fail to do what is within our grasp, which we can agree to, to me, seems like a bizarre way of doing business, and I think it is an abdication of our responsibility. I don't want to see another family who has lost a loved one as a result of one of these mass shootings that might be prevented by some action we might take on Fix NICS or the bump stock issue, for example. There may be other things we need to do. We have done some things, such as trying to address the mental health challenges that people like Adam Lanza's mother had. Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook shooter, was obviously mentally ill, but he wouldn't accept the treatment his doctor prescribed. What we did last December--during the Obama administration--passed something called the 21st Century Cures Act, which included a bill I sponsored called the Mental Health and Safe Communities Act, which encouraged the use of assisted outpatient treatment. For example, if Adam Lanza's mother couldn't handle her son--he wouldn't take his medication or comply with doctor's orders--she could go to a civil court and essentially get a court order requiring him to comply with his doctor's orders and to take his medication. Again, I am not suggesting that any one of these in isolation is a panacea, but there are things we can do step-by-step, bit-by-bit, to reduce the likelihood that these terrible mass shootings occur in the future.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I heard the remarks of my colleague from Illinois, and I, too, hope that we can get past the rhetoric and the talking points of the past and actually do something meaningful when it comes to public safety and address the terrible tragedies like the one that occurred at Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida just 2 weeks ago. But we are not going to do it by trotting out our laundry lists of requests and saying that it has to be all of this or nothing because when you say here in Washington--and particularly in Congress--``I want everything on my list or I want nothing,'' one thing is for sure. You will end up with nothing, and that simply is an unacceptable outcome, particularly when it comes to the public safety crisis manifested here most recently at Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida. We know that there were many, many failures; you might even call this a systemic failure when it comes to the children at Stoneman Douglas High School. First and foremost, why didn't Federal and local law enforcement follow up on threats and warnings? This young man, the shooter who took the lives of 17 people, telegraphed in very clear, unmistakable language what he intended to do, but the very people whom we trust and entrust with public safety at the Federal and State levels did not respond. We know that the alleged shooter was expelled from school for disciplinary reasons. We know that deputies in Broward County received at least 18 calls warning them over the course of several years--18 calls. We know about the disturbing YouTube posts, where the shooter basically said what he intend to do and did, in fact, do later. We know that the FBI received many disturbing tips from citizens about the imminent danger posed by the shooter. Another question is whether mental health officials could have done more. We know that this young man had a long history of violent outbursts. We are told that in 2016 he reportedly attempted suicide by drinking gasoline. He had been accused of verbal slurs against racial and religious minorities. We know that Florida has a State law, as some have advocated at the Federal level, that permits forced hospitalization of people in mental health crises, but it seems that in this particular case, mental health workers concluded that this individual was stable at the time they examined him. Why and how was that determination made, and why does that stand in such stark contrast to the picture that we have been able to draw as a result of all the information that we received since this terrible shooting? If law enforcement, public health workers, and school officials were communicating and coordinating effectively, would they have made the same decisions in this case? Could they have made a difference in the outcome? Well, I think we need the answers to those questions. There are two other questions we need to answer as well. One is why and how did the shooter have access to firearms in the first place? Another is why didn't the school's armed resource officer intervene once the shooting began? All of us are angry at the fact that this shooting happened, but that shouldn't tempt us into easy solutions that at the end of the day wouldn't make any difference in the outcome and wouldn't do any good. That is what we tend to get here in Congress when we have hard issues like this--easy solution talking points that lead to no effective action. We can't let that happen here. As one columnist put it last week, we can't fall victim to ``the politics of false hope.'' The most frequent refrain I hear in Washington after some tragedy like this occurs is ``We need to do something.'' Well, we need to do something effective, something that would change the likely outcome. We may not be able to protect every citizen against terrible tragedies like this, but there are things we can do that will make things better and that will be effective in changing the outcome and, I believe, in saving lives. Real solutions require us to look at why the FBI and local law enforcement failed to respond to multiple warnings. I asked one police officer about this, and he said: Well, in America we can't arrest somebody for precrimes. In other words, we can't arrest somebody for an offense that they haven't committed yet. It is perhaps a flaw that is exposed in our system when, unfortunately, we can't anticipate who might commit these terrible offenses and stop them before they commit the act. That is a feature of our law enforcement system, but this isn't just another job for law enforcement. There are a lot more people who could contribute to a solution here and prevent these incidents from happening beyond law enforcement, who are, by our very Constitution, structured to investigate and prosecute crimes that have already occurred, not to stop them in the first place. I think a fair question to ask is, What is the role of social media in preventing mass violence? When you have people basically telling us what they are getting ready to do and posting those on social media and nothing seems to happen as a consequence, it strikes me that something is terribly wrong there. What is the responsibility of these platforms? Well, we know that Congress has said, for example, that you have a responsibility to police your platform for things like child pornography. In other words, they can't be totally oblivious to the things that are being posted on these social media platforms. They have a responsibility to intervene in some cases, and maybe it ought to be in more cases. What options currently exist to reporting disturbing content online? I believe in the YouTube video case, it was someone who actually saw it, was disturbed by it, and then reported it to the FBI. It was not even YouTube itself that identified it. Of course, they would be in the best position to identify it immediately. It was some third party who happened to see it, was disturbed by it, and contacted the FBI. Tragically, it was never followed up on. How often are these popular platforms reporting to police or Federal authorities when people actually threaten to commit acts of violence? If there are holes in the reporting protocol, we should close them. That is why I think this is a systemic failure. When you look at mental health providers, when you look at law enforcement officials, when you look at the schools, when you look at the social media platforms, when you look at all of this together, I think it begins to give us some ideas about things we can do that may end up saving lives, and we should do them. Members are discussing many ideas, which always happens after a tragedy like this, and I am open to a conversation with anyone who shares my desire to take effective action to prevent another one of these tragedies. There is one proposal that has already been introduced that has won bipartisan support and has brought together advocates from all sides. It is really a unique piece of legislation because there are not many times that I can think of where people who are strong Second Amendment advocates and people who believe there ought to be more controls imposed on guns can come together to find consensus, to find common ground, but we have on a bill called the Fix NICS Act, which I introduced to strengthen the background check system. It may take a long time to answer all the questions raised by the tragedy in Parkland, but one step we can take right now is to pass the Fix NICS bill. This bill has the unique quality of causing the junior Senator from Connecticut and me to cointroduce this bill. We couldn't be more ideologically different. He is a Democrat and I am a Republican, but we have come together on a bill that does enjoy broad bipartisan support and that, I believe, will save lives. This bill was introduced in the wake of the shooting last fall in the small community near San Antonio called Sutherland Springs, TX. As we will recall, a deranged gunman with a criminal record and a history of violence and mental illness opened fire during a Sunday morning church service, killing 26 people and wounding 20 more. To add to the tragedy that had already occurred, this murderer's criminal conviction records were never uploaded to the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System. When he went to purchase firearms, he lied about his record, and there was nothing in the criminal background check system to show that he lied and thus deny him the opportunity to purchase weapons. This failure to enforce our background check law allowed this shooter to walk into a gun store, pass a background check, and illegally purchase a firearm. This bipartisan legislation would tighten the National Instant Background Check System. It is supported by people all across the political spectrum. It is even cosponsored by the Democratic leader, Senator Schumer, and is supported by Everytown for Gun Safety. It has brought together all sides in the gun debate--leaders on the Republican side and Democratic side alike. Under current law, mentally ill individuals and persons convicted of violent crimes are prohibited by current law from purchasing or possessing firearms. This is to make sure that these laws are enforced and that criminal history information is uploaded into the NICS Federal database by State and Federal authorities. For years, our colleagues across the aisle have said that they want reform that would help stem the tide of gun violence perpetrated by dangerous criminals. Well, this is their chance. This is our chance. It is our chance to show the Nation that we refuse to accept shootings in schools and churches as the new normal, and we can do that. We can start doing that by passing Fix NICS this week. Senator Schumer, the minority leader, said yesterday that he wants to wait, even though he is a cosponsor of the Fix NICS bill. He is a cosponsor of the bill, but he says that he wants to wait. He wants to wait and debate other ideas he knows are controversial and can't pass. Of course, that is his right as a Senator, but as I said earlier, if our attitude is ``I want everything on my list or nothing,'' we are going to end up with nothing. I, for one, am not willing to go home and look my constituents in the face and say that we had an opportunity to pass legislation, the Fix NICS bill, which will save lives in the future and will make sure that existing laws are enforced. I will not be able to go home and tell them, in good faith, that we have done everything we can in our power to help save lives. We can do that by passing bipartisan legislation that could pass today if it were put on the floor and voted on by a supermajority of the Senate. I implore our Democratic colleagues to change course. Let's do the art of the possible. That is what politics is, the art of the possible. Let's do what we can immediately to pass Fix NICS and build from there. I am willing to work with them. The President is willing to work with them on things like bump stocks and the mental health failure, trying to make sure that our schools are safer and to make sure that social media platforms report threats of violence to law enforcement officials so they can be followed up on. There are a lot of other things we can do, but the one thing we can do this week before we go home is to pass the Fix NICS bill and to send it to the House and have the President sign it into law. It will save lives. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).