John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker). Further, if present and voting the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker) would have voted ``no.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Vermont here. I will not be long. I did have a few comments to offer about the unusual developments of the last few days in Washington, DC. Back in 2011 and 2012 my office was contacted by some constituents who were active politically with organizers such as the King Street Patriots, True the Vote, the tea party, particularly in Waco and San Antonio. They were concerned that they were being targeted by the Federal Government, specifically the Internal Revenue Service, for their political activity. They were concerned that the activities of the Internal Revenue Service seemed excessive, unreasonable, and improper. They feared the government officials were targeting them for doing nothing more than exercising their constitutional rights under the First Amendment of the Constitution. So I did what I think any Senator would do, any Member of Congress: I wrote a letter to the Internal Revenue Service and asked them, first of all, about any indication they had that this was the case. Douglas Shulman, the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, testified later before Congress and categorically denied any type of targeting was, in fact, taking place. Well, last Friday we learned that my constituents were correct and the Internal Revenue Service was wrong. It turns out the Internal Revenue Service really was targeting American citizens for exercising their most fundamental rights. Even though the Internal Revenue Service did not acknowledge this until last Friday, the Associated Press has reported that senior agency officials learned about the abuses as early as June 2011, nearly 2 years ago. Let me be clear. These abuses are not simply inappropriate, they are a breach of faith with the American people. They are potentially violations of our criminal law. Now, as my friend from Vermont knows, if the IRS, if the government can target conservative groups such as the King Street Patriots and the tea party, they can target anybody anywhere across the political spectrum. That is why you are seeing such bipartisan outrage over this news. But not only was the IRS targeting tea party groups, they targeted other people based on their advocacy of restoring the Federal Government to its basic constitutional framework, people concerned about government spending. Meanwhile, there is evidence that the IRS also in some cases targeted Jewish organizations as well. I would hope we would all on a bipartisan basis rise and say this is unacceptable and it is immoral. It is the kind of behavior we associate not with the greatest democracy in the world but with corrupt tin-pot dictators. President Obama has said, to his credit, that all guilty parties will be held fully accountable. Well, I wish I could take some comfort from the President's comments. Unfortunately, the administration has repeatedly stonewalled and misled U.S. officials investigating programs like the Fast and Furious gunwalking scandal and the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya. The President of the United States got four Pinocchios today from the Fact Checker in the Washington Post. That has to be a first. So why should we expect the Internal Revenue Service investigation to be any different? Unfortunately, this administration has shown a tendency to put politics ahead of the rule of law too many times. For example, during the government-run Chrysler bankruptcy process, the company-secured bondholders received much less for their loans than did the United Auto Workers Pension Fund, a favorite of the Obama administration. As Solyndra was going bankrupt, the administration violated the law by making taxpayers subordinate to private lenders. So the taxpayers got gored first before private lenders were at risk. Last year the administration made unconstitutional recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board and to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Last year the administration illegally waived key requirements of the 1996 welfare reform law. Finally, to help implement ObamaCare, the IRS has announced that it will violate the text of the law and issue health insurance subsidies through Federal exchanges, something Congress did not authorize. The law clearly states that these subsidies are not available to the Federal exchange but to the State-based exchanges. Indeed, it is the case that the President's health care law will dramatically expand the power of the Internal Revenue Service because the agency is responsible for implementing so much of ObamaCare's most important provisions. Well, given what we have learned about IRS malfeasance, does it really sound like a good idea to give them more responsibility, to hire more agents? Before we get to the bottom of the present scandal, do we really want the IRS to administer a law that will affect one-sixth of our economy, as ObamaCare will? Do we really want the Internal Revenue Service agents collecting so much personal information about millions of American citizens? Remember, even before ObamaCare became the law, the IRS had more than enough power to destroy the lives of individual Americans. Chief Justice John Marshall, at the very beginning of our country, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States said the power to tax involves the power to destroy, and those words are still true today. With trust in the Federal Government already at an all-time low, the IRS scandal will further diminish public confidence in public institutions and in Washington, DC. As a result, this scandal will make it much harder for us to work together to adopt a fiscal policy and economic reforms that our country so desperately needs. When the IRS starts behaving as a rogue agent that considers itself above the law, we have entered truly dangerous territory. Today I am going to join others of my colleagues to call on the Acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller to resign. If it is true what currently appears to be true, that Mr. Miller willfully misled Congress when inquiries were made earlier about this political activity, he should resign today. Furthermore, I am encouraged actually by Chairman Max Baucus of the Senate Finance Committee and Senator Orrin Hatch who said they believe it is important for the Finance Committee as the appropriate standing committee of the Senate with jurisdiction over the Internal Revenue Service to conduct an investigation. I hope the first witness they will call is Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, who is the boss of the IRS, or overseer of the IRS, Mr. Miller's direct reporting boss. I look forward to a thorough bipartisan investigation that will deliver justice to these government officials who betrayed the American people in such a shameful and egregious manner. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso) and the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, a few weeks ago the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Baucus of Montana, warned that the President's premier domestic legislative accomplishment--ObamaCare--was turning into a huge train wreck. Now, that is pretty remarkable for a number of reasons, one of which is that Senator Baucus was one of the principal authors of ObamaCare. So his comments cannot be dismissed as simply partisan rhetoric or politics as usual. A few days after he made those comments, another important contributor to ObamaCare, Dr. Zeke Emanuel, brother of Rahm Emanuel, the President's former Chief of Staff, acknowledged that the massive uncertainty generated by the health care law is already causing insurance premiums to go up. Here is the scary part: ObamaCare hasn't actually been fully implemented and won't be until next year, 2014. So when it does take effect in 2014, we can expect insurance premiums to continue to rise, particularly for young people who are being asked once again to subsidize their elders, this time in the context of health care premiums. So much for the President's promise that the average family of four would see a reduction in their insurance premiums under his premier health care law by $2,500. That is right. If people remember, the President said: If you like what you have, you can keep it, which is proving not to be true as employers are going to be shedding the employer-provided coverage and dropping their employees into the exchange. He also said the average family of four would see a reduction in their health care costs of $2,500. Neither one of these is proving to be true. It gets worse from there. According to a new study, there is a new tax that was created by ObamaCare on insurance premiums. So we have to pay a tax on our insurance premiums too, which will reduce private sector employment anywhere from 146,000 jobs to 262,000 jobs by the year 2022. And, of course, the majority of those jobs will be in small businesses. It is not surprising, since small businesses are actually the engine of job creation in America, that they will be disproportionately hit. To make matters worse, ObamaCare's looming employer regulations are already prompting businesses to lay off workers, to reduce their working hours, and transform many full-time jobs into part-time jobs just so they can avoid the penalties and the sanctions in ObamaCare for employers. Last month alone the number of Americans doing part-time work ``because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job'' increased by 278,000--more than a quarter million Americans. Indeed, the total number of involuntary part-time workers was higher in April 2013 than it was in April 2012, just a year before. So the message for President Obama could not be any more obvious: His signature domestic legislative initiative is driving up health care costs, destroying jobs, and damaging our economic recovery. That is why it is so important we repeal this law, which I will grant the President his best intentions but in practice has shown to be the opposite of what he promised in so many different instances. But the consequences on long-term unemployment are what most people will feel; and that is the story of a very human tragedy for many people, some of whom have just simply given up looking for work. In fact, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has something called the labor participation rate. You can search it on the Internet. Look under ``labor participation rate.'' It will reveal that the percentage of Americans actually in the workforce and looking for work is at a 30- year low. What that means is some people have simply given up. We all know the longer you are out of work, the harder it is to find a job because your skills have gotten rusty. Others may, in fact, be more qualified to get a job opening if one presents itself. I cannot imagine the pain and frustration felt by millions of Americans who have been jobless for more than half a year. That is a long time. Unfortunately, the President does not seem to have an answer to this unemployment crisis--and that is exactly what it is--other than more taxes, after he got $620 billion in January as a result of the fiscal cliff negotiations, the expiration of temporary tax provisions. The President seems to believe more spending--even after his failed stimulus of a $1 trillion, which ratcheted up the debt even more--and more regulations is the answer to the unemployment crisis: more taxes, more spending, more regulations. Since the President has taken office, he has raised taxes by $1.7 trillion already. That includes the $620 billion I just mentioned--but $1.7 trillion. His policies have increased our national debt by $6.2 trillion. He has added another $518 billion worth of costly new regulations on the very people we are depending on to create the jobs and provide employment opportunities. The consequence is the longest period of high unemployment since the Great Depression. Now for some good news: Tomorrow the President is traveling to Texas, to the city of Austin where my family and I live. According to Forbes magazine, Austin is one of America's 10 Best Cities for Good Jobs. In fact, half of the top 10 Best Cities for Good Jobs in America include Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, and San Antonio. So, yes, I am bragging. But we must be doing something right, and I hope the President goes with an open mind to try to learn what is the cause of the Texas miracle when it comes to job creation and economic growth. Let me just point out that for 8 consecutive years Texas has been ranked as the best State for business by Chief Executive magazine. That explains why between 2002 and 2011 Texas accounted for almost one-third of all private sector job growth in America--one-third--many of these in high-paying industries. I know we like the claim about being big, but we are only 8 percent of the population, and we accounted for one- third of all of the U.S. private sector job growth between 2002 and 2011. Now, there is not a secret sauce or a secret formula. It is pretty clear why we have enjoyed that sort of job growth in America, and it is something I think the rest of the country could learn. It is low taxes on the very people we are depending upon to create jobs; it is limited government; it is the belief in the free enterprise system as the best pathway to achieve the American dream; and it is sensible regulations. We also believe in taking advantage of the abundant natural resources we have in our State and using those resources to expand the domestic energy supply, to bring down costs for consumers, and to create jobs in the process. I was recently in the Permian Basin--that is the Midland-Odessa region, as the Presiding Officer knows. This is an area that since 1920 has been one of the most prolific energy-producing regions of our State and the country. But because of new drilling technology--horizontal drilling and fracking--it is anticipated that from this point forward that region will produce as much as it has since 1920. That is amazing. That is something we ought to be very excited about, and it has created a lot of jobs. The nominal unemployment rate in the Permian Basin is about 3.2 percent. But employers will tell you they are hiring everybody they can get their hands on. Some of these folks have had problems in the past that might otherwise disqualify them for work, but as one employer told me: There is nothing like a job to provide an opportunity for people to rehabilitate themselves and get themselves on the right track. Well, President Obama's policies, in contrast to what we are seeing in Texas, seem to send the message that only Washington knows how to revive our economy, and by raising taxes and spending more money we do not have to boot. In other words, with all due respect to my colleagues from the west coast, he favors the California model. Unfortunately, that model has not worked too well for even our friends in California, and it will not work well for the rest of America either. By comparison, in that laboratory of democracy known as the State of Texas, our State has become a powerhouse for job creation, and it would go a long way to restoring the fiscal and economic health of the United States. Yes it would help those people who have been unemployed for 6 months or more, or even a shorter period of time, find work that will help them regain their sense of dignity and productivity and allow them to provide for their families, which is a goal I know we all share. Nomination of Thomas Perez

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, on another matter--but it is an important matter--I want to share a few words and a few observations about the President's nominee to be the Secretary of the Department of Labor, who is currently serving in the Justice Department. I am talking about Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez. Of course, we know the Department of Labor plays a very significant role in our economic policy and even U.S. immigration policy, which is a very controversial topic that we are just getting to take up tomorrow in the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which I am a member. During his tenure at the Justice Department, Mr. Perez has been in charge of the Civil Rights Division, which includes the Voting Section--obviously, a very important responsibility, but one that ought to eschew politics. Unfortunately, under his watch as head of the Civil Rights Division and Voting Section, that section has compiled a disturbing record of political discrimination and selective enforcement of our laws--something antithetical to what we consider to be one of the best things we have going for us in America, which is the rule of law: that all of us, no matter who we are, are subject to the same rules and play by those rules. You do not have to take my word for it--how the Voting Section and the Civil Rights Division have gotten dangerously off track under Mr. Perez's leadership. The Department of Justice inspector general published a 258-page report that said the Voting Section under Mr. Perez's leadership had become so politicized and so unprofessional that at times it became simply dysfunctional, it could not function properly. This 258-page report by the Department of Justice inspector general cited ``deep ideological polarization,'' which began under his predecessors and which has continued under Mr. Perez's leadership. The inspector general said this polarization ``has at times been a significant impediment to the operation of the Section and has exacerbated the potential appearance of politicized decision-making.'' This is at the Department of Justice. So instead of upholding and enforcing all laws equally, the Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division--the Voting Section--under Mr. Perez, has launched politically motivated campaigns against commonsense constitutional laws, such as the voter ID laws adopted by the States of Texas and South Carolina. In addition, he delivered misleading testimony to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights back in 2010. The inspector general said Mr. Perez's testimony about a prominent voting rights case ``did not reflect the entire story regarding the involvement of political appointees.'' So when you are not telling the whole truth, you are not telling the truth. Before joining the Department of Justice--and this is part of his unfortunate track record--he served as a local official in Montgomery County, MD. During those years, he consistently opposed the proper enforcement of our immigration laws. In fact, Mr. Perez testified against enforcement measures that were being considered by the Maryland State Legislature. I would ask my colleagues, because we have an important function to play under our constitutional system, one of advice and consent--that is the confirmation process for Presidential nominees--is this really the type of person we want running the Department of Labor, especially at a time when Congress is contemplating passage of important immigration reform laws? Given his record, I am concerned Mr. Perez does not have the temperament or the competence we need in our Secretary of the Department of Labor. I fear that, just like he has at the Department of Justice, he would invariably politicize the Department of Labor and impose ideological litmus tests. For all these reasons, and more, I will oppose his nomination. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller) and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake), the Senator from Ohio ( Mr. Portman), and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven).

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, amid complaints from the White House about the FAA furloughs, we need to keep at least one thing in mind: The sequester was President Obama's idea in the first place. His administration created it; he signed it into law on August 2, 2011; and he knew the date it would go into effect. And yet, as the deadline approached, earlier this year the President and his administration traveled the country to stir up anxiety, concern, and fear over the imposition of the sequester, warning that the sky would fall like a modern-day Chicken Little. It has been almost 2 months since the sequester took effect, and the administration's claims that the sky would fall have each proven to be false. First, we had the Secretary of Education Arne Duncan claiming the school teachers were already getting pink slips. But that wasn't true. Then President Obama declared that U.S. Capitol janitors were getting a pay cut. But on further examination, that proved not to be true. Customs and Border Protection initially told their employees-- including border agents--that they might be furloughed. However, a month into the sequester, Customs and Border Protection walked back that claim and decided to make better use of departmental resources. The Director of the National Park Service said the sequester might lead to cancellation of Washington, DC's cherry blossom festival. But as all the visitors who flocked to DC can tell you, the festival went on as planned, and Washington's Metro reported one of its highest ridership days in its history. With all of these bogus claims, it seems the administration is desperate to prove it wasn't crying wolf after all. For example, we are learning that the Federal Aviation Administration is now deliberately engineering flight delays--deliberately engineering flight delays, just as families gear up for their summer travel. It is a bizarre, almost surreal experience. All across America, businesses work hard to take care of their customers because they know their livelihood depends on their ability to satisfy their customers' needs. But when it comes to the administration and the Federal Government, the FAA and this White House are deliberately trying to make it harder on their customers--the people who use the airways and fly airplanes. Last week the head of the FAA acknowledged that, like other government institutions, his agency has the discretion to fund high- priority projects--over low-priority projects not a particularly remarkable statement in and of itself. But we know now that instead of using that discretion, the FAA has announced it plans to furlough employees for the remainder of the budgetary year, potentially leading to flight delays all across this country. The FAA's Director claims he has used all the flexibility allowed to him under the law--even though his agency spends $541 million on consultants, $179 million on travel, and $134 million on office supplies. By comparison, the sequester cuts the FAA budget by $637 million-- less than 4 percent of the agency's 2012 budget. I don't know any business in America that can't manage a 4-percent cut in their income. But the FAA apparently can't, without disrupting the air-traveling public, inconveniencing them, and even creating a hardship which is completely unnecessary. We have already seen the FAA exercise discretion to one small extent, and that is by delaying the closure of air traffic control towers until June 15, after announcing as many as three previous final dates for implementation. Much like the proposed tower closures, this recent round of furloughs is being driven not by the necessity of budget cuts but by political calculations and sheer incompetence, along with the administration's desire to apparently maximize the pain on American taxpayers because of their refusal to take our fiscal health seriously. It boggles the mind. We have offered legislation that would give the President and this administration the necessary flexibility to administer the cuts imposed by the sequester--which the President, again, knew was coming since he signed it into law on August 2, 2011. But our friends across the aisle blocked that legislation, which would give the FAA and the executive branch discretion, and the President's administration sent out a statement of administration policy saying that if we passed it, he would veto it. This morning I joined with Senator Hoeven, our colleague from North Dakota, to cosponsor bipartisan legislation that would direct the FAA to eliminate the flight delays it has imposed on air travelers. In order to meet this directive, the bill would give the Secretary of Transportation the additional authority to transfer funds within the Department's existing budget. This legislation represents just one of the many proposals that are designed to ensure that the sequester is not used as an excuse to endanger public safety and security, or inconvenience or create hardships for the air-traveling public. Unfortunately, between the cancellation of the White House tours and now the FAA furloughs, the administration has repeatedly shown it is more interested in finding ways to inconvenience the American people than it is in looking for real solutions to our fiscal problems. The American people, it would seem obvious, deserve more and better from their government. I urge the FAA, No. 1, to take another look at its budget, take a look at those piles of money that might be available to move around to help avoid the furloughs and avoid the inconvenience and disruption to the public or, 2, to use the flexibility that we would be glad to give the FAA, if it needs additional authority, to make commonsense decisions. We don't need another round of scare tactics. We need a serious conversation about our country's priorities, and a budget that reflects them. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson) and the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, it is perhaps an understatement to say that it has been a difficult week for our country. As Americans hold the city of Boston in their thoughts and prayers, I come to the floor to ask for another prayer for the small town of West, TX, in McLennan County, which is very close to Waco, TX. I just got off the phone talking to the county judge, Scott Felton, and he described for me the terrible tragedy that occurred last night and the ongoing efforts to recover from that tragedy. Apparently a fire started at an ammonia facility that then caught some tanks of anhydrous ammonia on fire and they literally exploded. And for those who aren't aware of the use of anhydrous ammonia, it is actually a source of nitrogen used in the cultivation of crops. You can imagine that at this time of year, springtime, when planting is starting, there is a lot of use for this essential fertilizer. The fire started at about 7:30 last night, and the volunteer fire department/first responders were called. The problem was they showed up for a fire but ultimately ended up being victims of the explosions that ensued a short time thereafter when tanks of this anhydrous ammonia exploded. They don't yet know the number of fatalities. I saw in press reports it could be between 5 and 15. Judge Felton tells me he fears it could be on the higher side of that number or even higher; they just don't know. They are continuing to try to find the victims and help those who need help. We do know more than 100 people were wounded. An unknown number have lost their lives, as I said, but we do know that among the dead are a number of firefighters, volunteer firefighters, and other first responders. As typical, and as we actually saw in Boston, during a time of crisis in tight-knit communities such as West and cities such as Boston, we see some acts of real heroism that are encouraging at a time when we could use a little encouragement. We are seeing the resilience of a tight-knit, self-sufficient community in the aftermath of this terrible tragedy. Businesses have reportedly stayed open throughout the night and neighbors have opened their doors to help support the victims. As is so often the case, ordinary citizens ran toward danger as they offered assistance. One resident loaded his car with people and made three successive trips to the hospital. This morning, as I was waking up and watching the news, I saw one gentleman who said he made multiple trips into the nursing home for nursing home residents who were not able to walk out themselves, to bring them to safety. As one police officer at the scene said, ``The people of West will not let a person stand out in the rain.'' We, of course, grieve for those who lost their lives and we pray for those who are injured and still missing. I ask all Americans to keep the people of West, TX, in their thoughts and prayers. Gun Legislation Mr. President, on another note--and I say this more in sadness than in anger--I watched the President of the United States say it was a pretty shameful day for Washington--on the national news. That was yesterday. I agree, but for different reasons than the President himself articulated. When good and honest people have honest differences of opinion about what policies our country should pursue when it comes to the Second Amendment and gun rights and mass gun violence, the President of the United States should not accuse them of having no coherent arguments or caving to the pressure. The President could have taken the high road, could have said, ok, now that we have been unsuccessful in these measures, let's move on to the area where we know there is consensus and that has to do with the mental health element in so many of these mass gun tragedies. Instead, he chose to take the low road. I agree with him it was a truly shameful day. I and many of my colleagues are not worried, as some of the press like to portray it, about the gun lobby who would spend a lot of money and paint us as anti-Second Amendment. I don't work for them. I don't listen for them. I work for 26 million Texans, and I am proud to represent them. The views I represented on the floor of the Senate are their views. If I do not represent their views, then I am accountable to them and no one else, and, no, those of us who did not agree with the President's proposals are not being intimidated, as he said yesterday. It is false, it is absolutely false to say it comes down to politics, as he said. For me, it comes down to a meeting I had with the families who lost loved ones at Sandy Hook Elementary School. I told them I was not interested in symbolism, in things we might be able to do that would have had no impact on the terrible tragedy that day or in Tucson or at Virginia Tech or in Aurora, CO. I am not interested in passing legislation that would have had no impact on those incidents and then patting ourselves on the back and congratulating ourselves, saying, haven't we done a wonderful thing, when in fact it would be to celebrate symbolism over solutions. I am interested in trying to come up with a solution. I told them that day, the family members who came to visit with me as we grieved with them for their terrible loss, I told them that as I understood what they were telling me, they were not coming to sell a particular political point of view or an agenda or legislative laundry list of things they wanted to see passed. It boiled down to this. These families--who lost children and parents and spouses--want to make sure their loved one did not die in vain. They want to make sure something good comes out of this terrible tragedy. Why wouldn't we want to work together to try to help them achieve their goals? The President indicated yesterday that the legislation he actually was pursuing, the so-called assault weapons ban, the background check bill, and others--he said none of that legislation would have solved the problem these families were experiencing. I happen to agree with that part of what he said. But instead of calling the President names and taking the low road as he did yesterday and chastising my fellow Senators for their good-faith disagreement on the best policies to pursue in order to make sure these families' loss was not in vain, I am here to ask for his help. I am here to ask for the help of every Member, to try to make sure we actually continue to look for measures we might be able to get behind to actually make things better, that would have offered a solution to some of these problems. I have heard Senator Feinstein, who so eloquently spoke in favor of her proposed assault weapons ban. She conceded--I think as she had to-- that Adam Lanza would not have been stopped by an assault weapons ban because he stole weapons his mother legally possessed, and he murdered his own mother before he then went to Sandy Hook Elementary School and murdered innocent children and other adults. The background check bill would not have had any impact on that. As Senator Feinstein conceded, as she must, neither would the assault weapons ban we voted on yesterday. What might have an impact on incidents such as occurred at Virginia Tech? What might have had an impact on incidents that occurred in Tucson, where Congresswoman Gabby Giffords was shot and others killed? We know the background check system, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the NICS system that the FBI maintains, depends on the States sending information to the FBI that they could use to screen out gun buyers. As a matter of fact, the shooter at Virginia Tech had been adjudicated mentally ill by the State of Virginia, but that information was never forwarded to the FBI to be used on a background check so he could therefore purchase weapons without a hit occurring on the NICS background check system. After 2008, we passed legislation encouraging the States, trying to incentivize them to send that information to the FBI so that would not happen again. We know from the Government Accountability Office, the GAO, that the record of compliance with that law is dismal indeed. Many States simply have not done it. I believe there are things we can do to further incentivize the States to send that information so the background check system, maintained by the FBI, actually works to preclude shooters such as the Virginia Tech shooter from legally buying weapons because there would be a hit on the background check system and he would be stopped from that source of these weapons. We know in Tucson, for example, the shooter there failed a drug test when he tried to volunteer for the military. That is also a disqualifying incident that had it been reported to the background check system, as it could have and should have been, would have prevented him from purchasing weapons legally without being blocked by a hit on the background check system. Why in the world wouldn't we look for ways to improve the current background check regime, to stop people like that from buying weapons and committing these mass atrocities? I believe there is actually a way forward for us, and I hope Senator Reid, the majority leader, who controls the agenda on the Senate floor, will not choose to quit in our effort to try to find solutions, indeed something we need to pursue instead of just symbolic gestures which would have had no impact on these mass gun tragedies. We do not know what the majority leader is going to choose to do. He may choose to get off the gun bill and get onto other business. It is his prerogative to file the appropriate paperwork to ask the Senate to do that. But it is our prerogative to say, no, we believe we ought to stay on this topic until we pass commonsense solutions that would actually make a difference in terms of these mass tragedies, and so these families could say, no, my loved one--amidst all this terrible tragedy, amidst this terrible grief and heartache they are experiencing that we can all just barely imagine, that they can say something good came out of their loss because Congress moved forward, putting politics aside, setting the talking points aside, and looked for some sort of common ground that would advance the cause of public safety and, hopefully, just hopefully, prevent some of these tragedies from occurring in the future. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to call up my amendment numbered 719.

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.