Ted Cruz

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. The issue before this body is not a budget. The issue before this body is not going to conference. The issue before this body is one thing in particular: It is the debt ceiling and whether the Senate will be able to raise the debt ceiling using a procedural back door that would allow only 51 votes. My friend from Nevada, my friend from Washington State, both of them could go to conference on the budget right now today if they would simply agree this budget would not be used as a back door to use a procedural trick to raise the debt limit--not on 60 votes but on 50 votes. I commend their candor, because neither one of them is willing to make that representation, and that is commendable. But I would point out that nothing in the budget we debated raised the debt ceiling. I would suggest the American people are not interested in procedural games. I think they are tired of games by the Democrats and tired of games by the Republicans. What they are interested in is leadership in this body to address the enormous fiscal and economic challenges facing this country. Our national debt is nearly $17 trillion. It is larger than the size of our entire economy. In the last 4 years our economy has grown 0.9 percent a year, with 23 million people struggling to find jobs. This body should be debating every day how we get the economy moving, how we get people back to work, how we stop our unsustainable debt. Instead of doing that, 2 weeks ago we spent a week voting to add $23 billion in new taxes to small retailers online, creating an Internet sales tax-- going backwards, killing economic growth and killing jobs. This issue is very simple: Will the Senate allow a procedural back door to raise the debt ceiling and doing so while not fixing any of the problems? My friends on the Democratic side of the aisle believe we should raise the debt ceiling with no conditions, with no changes, with no spending reforms, with no progrowth reforms, with nothing to stop this unsustainable spending. The President likewise has said: Raise the debt ceiling with no conditions. That is why, I would submit, the majority leader is not willing to agree: No, this budget conference report will not be used to raise the debt ceiling, because it is precisely the hope to do so. This body may well vote to raise the debt ceiling. But if this body votes to raise the debt ceiling, we should do so after a fair and open debate, where the issue is considered and where the threshold is the traditional 60-vote threshold and we can address what I think is imperative--that we fix the problem. When I travel across the State of Texas, men and women stop me all the time and say: Enough of the games. Go up there, roll up your sleeves, work with each other and fix the problem. Getting a new credit card--jacking up the debt ceiling--with no spending reforms, no structural reforms, no progrowth reforms is a mistake and it is the wrong path.

Mr. CRUZ. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. CRUZ. I thank my friend from Kentucky, and that is exactly what I am hearing from men and women throughout Texas. I would note for the Senator from California and the Senator from Washington that I respect the sincerity of their beliefs, that they genuinely believe the Democratic budget passed by this body is the proper course for this country; that the proper course is to raise taxes yet another $1 trillion on top of the $1.7 trillion that taxes have already increased. They genuinely believe the proper course is never to balance the budget and allow massive deficits to extend into perpetuity. I respect the sincerity of their views, but at the same time I believe those views are inconsistent with the best interests of this country; that the best interests of this country are to restore economic growth, are to get back to historic levels of growth that allow small businesses to thrive and, in particular, allow the most vulnerable among us to work and to achieve the American dream. In the last 4 years, under President Obama, we have had 4 consecutive years of less than 1 percent average growth in the economy. I refer to this period as the ``great stagnation.'' The people who have been hurt the most during the great stagnation have been young people, have been Hispanics, African Americans, and single moms. Right now, if we look at unemployment, unemployment for those without a high school degree is over 11 percent, for Hispanics it is nearly 10 percent, for African Americans it is nearly 14 percent, and for young people it is over 25 percent. When this country has massive spending, massive debt, massive regulation, and massive taxes, the result is that small businesses are strangled and die, and the people who lose their jobs are the single moms who are struggling to provide for their kids at home, like so many moms now seeing their hours forcibly reduced to 29 hours a week because of the burdens of ObamaCare. I believe we have an obligation to the American people to focus every day on turning the economy around, on getting jobs back, and stopping our unsustainable debt. My friend from California made reference to the prospect of a default. I absolutely agree the United States should never, ever, ever default on its debt, and that is the reason why I strongly support the legislation introduced by the Senator from Pennsylvania, Pat Toomey, the Default Prevention Act, which says: In the event the debt ceiling is not raised, the United States will always pay its debts, pay the interest on its debts, so we never default. I would note my friends on the other side of the aisle right now could join together in taking default off the table entirely. (Several Senators addressed the Chair.)

Mr. CRUZ. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Washington.

Mr. CRUZ. I will be glad to yield.

Mr. CRUZ. With our vote, but also to defend the ability to have our vote matter, to have it make a difference. Because if this procedural trick is allowed to go forward, what it would mean--this fight right now is the fight over the debt ceiling. Because what it would mean, if we go to a conference committee, as sure as night follows day, we would find ourselves in a month or two with a debt ceiling increase coming back and the Democrats in this body voting to raise the debt ceiling with no conditions whatsoever, which is what the President has asked for.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Would the Senator from Utah yield for a question?

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I wish to ask a question but will start by laying a predicate and ask the Senator's views on that predicate. I rise to support the resolution offered by Senator Lee calling upon the Senate to investigate and hold hearings about the late-term abortion practices in this country. This is especially important given the fact we are seeing allegations of similar conduct to that of Dr. Gosnell potentially being performed in other locations across the country. Indeed, there have been allegations of similar conduct in my hometown of Houston, TX, which I understand are being investigated by the local district attorney and other authorities and that need to be fully and thoroughly investigated. The crimes committed by Dr. Gosnell are almost unspeakable. The harm inflicted to the mothers and to the babies who were born alive and had their lives willingly extinguished--unthinkable. The actions detailed in the grand jury report depict a house of horrors. Knowing what we know now about what happened, everyone in this body should be supporting conducting an investigation to make sure there are not other Dr. Kermit Gosnells across this country. We need to make sure it is not happening to other unsuspecting mothers, that other newborn babies are not being murdered as they were in Dr. Gosnell's clinic. Specifically this resolution states: Congress and States should gather information about and correct abusive, unsanitary and illegal abortion practices and the interstate referral of women and girls to facilities engaged in dangerous or illegal second- or third-trimester procedures. This body should be concerned what referrals were made to Dr. Gosnell and who else might be performing these late-term abortions in such horrific conditions. This resolution goes on to say: Congress has the responsibility to investigate and conduct hearings on abortions performed near, at, or after viability in the United States, public policies regarding such, and evaluate the extent to which such abortions involve violations of the natural right to life of infants who are born alive or are capable of being born alive and therefore are entitled to equal protection under the law. In my judgment this is a resolution everyone should support. Everyone who proclaims himself or herself to be a champion for women and children should enthusiastically support this resolution. Many of these late-term abortion clinics serve under-privileged populations. Anyone who proclaims himself a champion dedicated to helping the most vulnerable should be supporting this resolution. The Senate has an obligation to conduct oversight. Planned Parenthood, the Nation's largest abortion provider in 2001 performed 333,964 abortions in the United States. From 2011 to 2012, Planned Parenthood received 45 percent of its revenue from taxpayer- funded sources. Almost half of its income comes from the taxpayer. This body has an obligation to make sure there are not other Gosnell houses of horror practicing today. The conditions described in the grand jury report shock the conscience. They describe how doctors and nurses worked without proper licenses.

Mr. CRUZ. My question to the Senator is, does he see how any Senator of good faith, given these facts, could oppose this resolution?

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I rise in praise of Majority Leader Harry Reid. He said the following: My friend from Texas . . . is like the schoolyard bully. He pushes everyone around and is losing, and instead of playing the game according to the rules, he not only takes the ball home with him but he changes the rules. Today Leader Reid continued his demonstration of civility by referring to me as the ``very junior Senator from Texas.'' As I noted yesterday, the Senate is not a schoolyard. Setting aside the irony of calling someone a bully and then shouting them down when they attempt to respond, today I simply wish to commend my friend from Nevada for his candor. Yesterday I expressed my concern that sending the budget to conference could be used to pass tax increases or a debt ceiling increase through reconciliation--a backdoor path that would circumvent the longstanding protections of the minority in the Senate. And I observed that I would readily consent to the leader's request if he would simply agree that no such procedural tricks would be employed. It is perhaps rare for a so-called bully to offer to waive all objections if the other side will simply agree to abide by the rules, but I commend the majority leader for his response. He did not disagree that he hoped to use reconciliation to try to force through tax increases or a debt ceiling increase on a straight party-line vote. He did not pretend that his intentions were otherwise. When the economy is struggling so mightily, as it is now--for the past 4 years our economy has grown at just 0.9 percent a year--it would be profoundly damaging to millions of Americans to raise taxes yet again, on top of the $1.7 trillion in new taxes that have already been enacted in the last 4 years. And with our national debt approaching $17 trillion--larger than the size of our entire economy--it would be deeply irresponsible to raise the debt ceiling yet again without taking real steps to address our fiscal and economic crisis. If done through reconciliation, the majority could increase taxes or the debt ceiling with a 50-vote threshold rather than needing 60 votes. The American people already saw ObamaCare pass through backroom deals and procedural tricks. It should not happen again. The majority leader could have claimed that he had no intention of trying to undermine the protections of the minority or of forcing through tax increases or yet another increase in the debt ceiling. But, in a refreshing display of candor, he did not do so, and I commend him for his honesty, so that our substantive policy disagreement can be made clear to the American people. Let me be explicit. We have no objection to proceeding to conference if the leader is willing to agree not to use it as a backdoor tool to raise the debt ceiling. If not, he is certainly being candid, but the American people are rightly tired of backroom secret deals to raise the debt ceiling even further. And we should not be complicit in digging this Nation even further into debt on merely a 50-vote threshold. Finally, I would note that the leader made a plea to regular order, and yet he was seeking unanimous consent to set aside regular order, granting that concept could open the door to even more tax increases and crushing national debt, and in my judgment the Senate should not employ a procedural backdoor to do so. For reasons unknown, the majority leader deemed my saying so out loud as somehow ``bullying.'' Speaking the truth, shining light on substantive disagreements of our elected representatives, is not bullying; it is the responsibility of each of us. It is what we were elected to do. All of us should speak the truth and do so in candor. All of us should work together to solve the crushing economic and fiscal challenges in this country. All of us should exercise candor, and I commend the majority leader and thank him for his willingness to do so. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. CRUZ. Yes. I object.

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I was not aware we were at a schoolyard.

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, one of my concerns is that this conference report could be used to pass a reconciliation bill that would increase the debt ceiling without sufficient input from the minority party and without addressing the fundamental structural spending problems we have in the Federal Government that are leading to our unsustainable debt. I believe this concern is well founded in history in that reconciliation bills have been used to increase the debt ceiling at least three times--in 1986, 1990, and in 1993. So for that reason, reserving the right to object, I ask consent that the leader modify his request so that it not be in order for the Senate to consider a conference report that includes tax increases or reconciliation instructions to increase taxes or to raise the debt limit.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I rise today to speak out against the so- called Marketplace Fairness Act. In my view, during a time of economic challenge, as we are in today, the very top priority of every elected official, whether Republican or Democrat, should be to restore economic growth, to get our economy moving, to get back to the economic dynamism, the economic strength that has lifted so many millions out of poverty and toward the American dream. This bill, if enacted into law, would hurt economic growth and would be a mistake. First of all, more taxes will hurt economic growth, and this bill, if enacted, would in effect create a national Internet sales tax. It would subject small online retailers to paying taxes in 9,600 different jurisdictions all across this country. At a time when so many are hurting, we should be discussing how to reduce regulatory burdens on small businesses and how to reduce tax burdens on small businesses, how to reduce the complexity of taxes on small businesses, and this bill goes in exactly the opposite direction. In particular, those who will be hurt the most by this bill if it is passed are small mom-and-pop retailers online. The threshold for this bill is $1 million in gross online sales. That is not profit; that is $1 million in total sales, gross sales, and $1 million for a starting business is not a terribly high threshold for their gross, not their profits. That has to cover the costs and all expenses of the business. It has to cover any salary, any rent, any Web costs, communications, travel, accounting, legal services, plus the costs of goods sold. These small- and medium-sized businesses would suddenly find themselves subject to 46 different States and 9,600 local jurisdictions. They would find themselves having to pay tax filings, potentially, in all 46 States monthly or quarterly and to be subjected, potentially, to audits from each of these local counties, each of these local municipalities. I have with me here today a listing of all of the tax rates of these 9,600 different jurisdictions. It is truly indecipherable, that you can look and pick any State and get the county and see the different tax rates. Indeed, in a lot of counties--for example, I just opened this at random. In Colorado--which I happened to open it to--if you look in Taylor Park, if it happens to come from the 81210 ZIP Code, the tax rate is 4.5 percent, but if it is in the same county that comes from the 81230 ZIP Code, the tax rate is 8.25 percent. Small businesses--a small mom-and-pop just getting started on the Internet would be required to comply with all of these taxing jurisdictions, to send the taxes to all of these taxing jurisdictions, and to be subject, potentially, to audits from 9,600 taxing jurisdictions. That makes no sense. I wish to point out also that this is not fundamentally about fairness. The proponents of this act point to small mom-and-pop stores that are their bricks-and-mortar retailers. But those are not the main proponents of these bills. A small bricks-and-mortar retailer right now is losing sales primarily to two different sources: No. 1, big-box bricks-and-mortar retailers. They are losing a lot of sales to big-box large retailers. This bill does nothing about that. No. 2, they are losing substantial sales to large online retailers, the giant corporations. But here is an interesting statistic. Nine of the ten largest Internet retailers are already paying sales taxes in all 46 States that have sales taxes. Why? Because they have a physical presence in the State. What the Supreme Court has said is, if you are physically in a State, the State can force you to collect its tax. But if you are not physically there, the Constitution does not let you haul someone in from a distant State and force them to collect your taxes because you do not have any accountability to those individuals in a distant State. In terms of the small mom-and-pop retailers, they are losing their sales to the big-box and big Internet retailers, all of whom are already paying these taxes. So what do we have here? We have a bipartisan coalition, unfortunately, that it appears is going to pass this bill in this Senate. But the coalition is driven by the fact that you have big business united. You have the big business bricks-and-mortar companies and the big business online retailers all together because the impact of this bill is to hammer the small business online retailers, to make it harder for the little guys to compete. So you see a strange alliance here in Washington, but one that I think is exactly backwards of what we ought to be doing. I think it is fundamentally unfair to ask a Texas business to collect taxes for California Governor Jerry Brown or for New York City Mayor Bloomberg and a nanny State, in particular, because they cannot hold those politicians accountable. They do not have a presence there. They do not vote there. They do not have influence there. But yet they are being dragooned into collecting those taxes. I think that is fundamentally not right. Let me give you an example of how this will hurt small businesses. There is a woman in Texas named Ann Whitley Wood who wrote a letter to our office. She lives in Dallas and had created an online consignment store. Even though it is largely a one-person operation, she may come close to doing $1 million in sales--which, keep in mind, are not profits; those are gross sales. Her letter said: Legislators must understand that it is both possible and common for a small seller like me to reach about $1 million in sales with a near-one person operation. She estimates it could take her 6 weeks a year to comply with the sales tax procedures for all of the collecting States. That impact on a small business is crushing. A giant corporation has accountants, has lawyers, has people designed to deal with that. For a small business, it hits them in particular. I point out even more fundamentally, the Internet has been this incredible haven of entrepreneurial freedom. It has enabled people to start businesses with nothing, out of their garage, and sell all over the world. It has transformed the ability for single moms and Hispanics and African Americans and people with nothing to go and start a business. Because it used to be that you needed this big distribution network, you needed warehouses, you needed trucks, you needed all of this, so it was difficult for someone to start a small business. The Internet has transformed all of that. There are 2.3 million Hispanic small business owners. The Internet has been critical to their being able to open those small businesses because it lets them communicate with the world and get their products out. I believe the Senate should treat the Internet as a safe haven, that it should be treated as free from taxes and regulations that would hamper the entrepreneurial spirit and make it harder for the little guy, for small business to be created, to grow, and thrive. When they become gigantic corporations, they will have a physical presence in the State, and then they will be subject to the taxes. But do not hit them when they are getting started on the Internet. I think it would be absolutely foolish to do anything to impinge on the entrepreneurial freedom of the Internet. In conclusion, I want to say three very simple things. No. 1, in my judgment, we should not be taxing the Internet, period. No. 2, we should not be increasing the burdens on small businesses, particularly at a time of economic challenge, period. And, No. 3, we should not be favoring politicians and big business at the expense of the little guy, at the expense of the single mom trying to start a small business to feed her kid, at the expense of the Hispanic immigrant trying to start a small business and work toward the American dream. We should not be standing with politicians looking for more tax revenue and big businesses looking to make it harder for their competitors to survive. Instead, we should stand up with the little guy, the small business, with the American people. I urge the Senate to reject this bill. If the Senate does pass it, I would urge the House to listen to the American people and reject the bill as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. What is not the exact same is extending it to a private individual selling to another private individual.

Mr. CRUZ. Is the Senator suggesting that the Senate should move these votes?

Mr. CRUZ. But what is consequential is extending it to private sellers, not licensed dealers. Because the argument surely would be--if this bill passed, the argument would immediately become: Well, it cannot possibly be effective because we do not know who owns those firearms.

Mr. CRUZ. I am happy to yield.

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the Grassley-Cruz substitute amendment. This amendment has come through the extended process of consideration of legislation and, indeed, I think this amendment has come to pass precisely the way the process should operate as a result of multiple hearings in the Judiciary Committee; taking witness testimony, examining what the evidence demonstrates is the problem, and then endeavoring to craft a solution that multiple Senators have contributed to. It has been a long collaborative process. At this point this amendment has over 20 cosponsors, and I am hopeful and believe that when it comes to a vote, it will receive some significant bipartisan support. In my view the approach of the Federal Government to violent crime should be very simple. It should be focused on stopping violent criminals, and we should devote every resource to stopping violent criminals from committing horrific acts of violence. Every one of us was horrified by the crime in Newtown, CT--at the senseless killing.

Mr. CRUZ. I am happy to yield.

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, as the distinguished chairman is well aware, this amendment was not put before the committee, but it is as a result of the process in the committee; the testimony that was given in multiple hearings that I was honored to attend with the chairman and with the Presiding Officer, and it is in response to that testimony and that evidence that over 20 Senators have come together to craft legislation that actually addresses the problem. Indeed, I would note, my biggest concern with the legislation--the Democratic legislation on the floor--is it doesn't address the problem. It doesn't target violent criminals. Instead, what it does is it targets law-abiding citizens. If we are to be effective in stopping violent crime--and I am confident every Member of this body wants to do everything we can to stop violent criminals from harming innocents among us--the approach that is effective, in my judgment, is targeting violent criminals while at the same time safeguarding the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans. That is exactly what this substitute does. I wish to talk about several aspects of it, all of which are directed at targeting bad actors, at targeting violent criminals rather than law-abiding citizens. One of the disturbing things we discovered in the course of these extended hearings in the Judiciary Committee is that the Obama Justice Department has not made it a priority to prosecute felons and fugitives who attempt to illegally purchase firearms. Indeed, we learned that in 2010, over 48,000 felons and fugitives attempted to illegally purchase firearms. Of those 48,000, the Obama Justice Department prosecuted only 44. That is 44 out of over 48,000. At the hearing, we heard from a police chief who yelled at a Senator and said he didn't have time to worry about paperwork violations. I would submit that if a convicted felon is trying to illegally buy a gun, that is not a paperwork violation, and that is a prime area for focusing law enforcement resources, to figure out why that felon wants a gun and to go and prosecute them. If a fugitive fleeing from justice tries to illegally purchase a gun, we need to have the resources to prosecute it. So one of the things this bill does is to create a task force within the Department of Justice devoted to prosecuting felons and fugitives who attempt to illegally purchase guns. It provides $50 million--$10 million a year over 5 years--to provide the additional resources to make sure that when felons and fugitives try to illegally purchase guns, we go after them, we prosecute them, we put them away, and we prevent them from acquiring those guns and using them in horrific acts of violence. A second aspect of this substitute focuses on gun crimes--instances where felons use a gun in the commission of a crime. In 1997, in Richmond, the U.S. attorney there pioneered a program called Project Exile, which was tremendously successful. I note that was the U.S. attorney under a Democratic President, Bill Clinton. Project Exile put serious Federal resources to prosecuting under Federal law anyone who uses a gun in the commission of a crime. As a result of that innovative plan, we saw tremendous success. In 1997, before Project Exile had been implemented, Richmond had the third highest murder rate in the Nation. Yet, in 1998, after Project Exile was implemented, homicides dropped 33 percent. The next year, in 1999, homicides dropped an additional 21 percent. It was a program that worked. When President George W. Bush was elected, he expanded the program with Project Safe Neighborhoods, focused the same, putting law enforcement resources and priorities and prosecuting the use of guns in a violent crime. Unfortunately, under the current administration, this has not been a priority. Indeed, in firearms cases, prosecutions have dropped 30 percent in the Obama Justice Department. All of us are united in wanting to stop violent crime and, in particular, stopping violent crime with firearms. I would suggest the most effective way to do so is to ensure we are prosecuting violent criminals who use firearms. For that reason this amendment creates a national Project Exile that would, in particular, focus on the 15 jurisdictions with the highest violent crime rates and three tribal jurisdictions with the highest crime rates. It would devote $45 million--$15 million a year for 3 years--for more assistant U.S. attorneys and agents to prosecute violent gun crimes, to target exactly who we want to target--violent criminals. I would note as well that this legislation also includes new language criminalizing straw purchasing, criminalizing trafficking but doing so in a way that targets bad actors and doesn't sweep innocent, law-abiding citizens inadvertently into its reach. A third area of focus is school safety. Unfortunately, the Obama administration, in the past several years, has reduced the funding for school safety by over $300 million. Indeed, next to me are detailed examples: The Secure Our Schools grants were cut $110 million in 2012; readiness and emergency management for schools was cut $20 million to 30 million annually in 2012; school safety initiative was cut $53 million in 2011; and the safe and drug-free school grants were cut $184 million in 2010. This substitute restores funding for school safety. If the effort is to protect our kids--and I know all 100 Senators want to do everything we can to protect our kids--one of the most direct ways is to make sure there are resources on the ground protecting our kids. So this bill would provide $300 million in funding--$30 million a year for 10 years--to do exactly that, to provide funding for the secure our schools grants. A fourth area is improving the existing background checks as it concerns mental illness. If we look for a common theme among these mass murders we have seen in recent years, one of the most disturbing themes is we have seen person after person with serious mental illness accessing firearms and using them to commit horrific acts of violence. One of the real problems with our existing background check system is some 18 States have essentially refused to comply with reporting mental health records. Some 18 States have reported fewer than 100 records to the background check system. If adjudications of someone as a danger to others--having a serious mental illness that makes them a danger to others--if those adjudications are not reported to the background check system, then the existing system cannot operate. I would note my home State of Texas has devoted considerable efforts to reporting those records and, indeed, over 200,000 mental health records have been reported from the State of Texas to ensure that those with serious mental illness who are a danger to others are prevented from accessing firearms. If the objective is to stop violent crime, then it seems to me we should focus on criminals. I would note that quite intuitive statement is not one which I am alone in viewing in that way. Recently, a survey was done of over 15,000 law enforcement professionals about what measures would be effective stopping violent crime. Mr. President, 79.7 percent of law enforcement professionals, in this survey done by police, said, one, expanded background checks would not be effective in stopping violent crime; 71 percent of law enforcement professionals said the assault weapons ban being considered by this body would not be effective in stopping violence crime; interestingly enough, 20.5 percent of law enforcement professionals said if the assault weapons ban were passed, it would actually make violent crime worse; and 95.7 percent of law enforcement professionals--virtually unanimous--said the magazine restrictions that are being considered by this body would not be effective in stopping violent crime. I would suggest we should listen to the men and women on the ground, to the police officers, who risk their lives defending us, defending our children, and we should trust their assessment. I wish to make two final observations. One, there has been considerable discussion about expanding background checks. Right now, background checks are required of any individual who purchases a firearm from a licensed Federal firearms dealer. That is the existing system, and the system that the amendment I am proposing would work to improve. There is an amendment pending before this body to expand that system significantly and in particular to cross a threshold that has not previously been crossed: to require Federal Government background checks for purely private sales between private individuals. If an individual wants to sell, for example, his shotgun, and he puts an ad on Craigslist advertising that shotgun, under the pending bill, by putting that ad on Craigslist, that individual would be required to submit to a Federal background check, would be required to go to a Federal firearms dealer to do so, and would, of necessity, have to pay whatever fee was set. I would note that fee could well be substantial. We do not know what that fee would be, but we do know the District of Columbia right now charges $150 to conduct a background check. If the fee turned out be anything in the order of what the District of Columbia charges, the effect of passing that bill would essentially be a Federal Government penalty, potentially as much as $150, on an individual who wanted to sell his or her shotgun or rifle to another law-abiding citizen in a purely private transaction. I would suggest if the objective is to stop violent crime, in all of the hearings we had before the Judiciary Committee, there was no evidence submitted that purely private transactions between private citizens were a significant source of firearms used in crimes and that regulating them would help reduce violent crime. Indeed, as I said, one police chief told the committee he did not have time to prosecute felons and fugitives who were illegally trying to purchase guns. If law enforcement does not have time to prosecute felons and fugitives, then I would suggest they especially do not have time to prosecute private citizens in a private consensual sale, when neither of those individuals have committed a crime; they are law-abiding citizens. That is not an effective use of law enforcement resources. But even more problematic, extending background checks to private transactions between private individuals--if this body did that--I believe would put us inexorably on the path to a national gun registry. The reason is simple: Because by extending background checks to private transactions--the Department of Justice has been very candid about this. The Deputy Director of the National Institute of Justice explained that with respect to universal background checks, ``effectiveness depends on requiring gun registration.''

Mr. CRUZ. I think that is ordinarily the right process to follow. In this case, this bill, this substitute took considerable time and was the result of extended negotiation among a great many Senators. And I know my friend from West Virginia has gone through those extended negotiations before and surely will again. This was filed as soon as there was agreement that brought people together in an area that is my hope we should be able to find consensus. We should be able to find consensus on targeting violent criminals. That is what this bill endeavors to do. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRUZ. I am happy to yield to my friend from West Virginia.