Richard Shelby

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, as we all know, we have a jobs crisis in America. High unemployment and weak economic growth have festered for nearly 5 years. American families are increasingly dependent upon government, and businesses are being suffocated by it all over this country. I believe our ability to emerge from this jobs crisis stronger than before depends upon government performing its proper role in the economy. In my view, that role is to establish the conditions for job creation and economic growth in the private sector. Through stable fiscal policy, a simplified tax code, and streamlined regulation, the government can create an economic environment conducive to risk-taking and innovation that leads to real job creation in this country. Unfortunately, the same toxic combination of government overreach and inaction which has failed to produce a jobs recovery in this country thus far also threatens to prolong the jobs crisis, I believe, for years to come. We learned in the last few days that President Obama is planning a PR blitz to gloss over his failed economic agenda. Over a series of speeches he will give around the country, he said he will discuss his vision for the future. But he will offer nothing new. According to the New York Times, his jobs plan is ``largely repackaging economic proposals that the President has offered for years.'' We need a fresh free market approach to job creation. Stale Obama policy leftovers will not cut it. They are not new ideas. It is not a new beginning. I will preface my remarks here on the fiscal, tax, regulatory, and monetary policy challenges we face in this country with a more detailed description of the current macro-economic conditions, starting with job numbers. The official unemployment rate in the United States is 7.6 percent. That makes 54 straight months of unemployment above 7\1/2\ percent. However, as grim as those figures are, they do not tell the full story. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the real unemployment rate in this country--known as U6--is 14.3 percent unemployment. U6 includes those who are unemployed, those who want to work but have stopped searching for a job, and those working part time because they cannot find full-time work. Some 22.6 million Americans fall under this category I have just described. That is the real unemployment. That is sad. The real unemployment rate was 14.2 percent when President Obama took office in January of 2009. It peaked at 17.1 percent in late 2009 and early 2010 but has not fallen below 13.8 percent during his time in office. By all measures this has been a jobless Presidency thus far. Digging further into the numbers reveals more troubling trends. The number of people working part time because their hours were cut back or because they cannot find full-time work increased by 322,000 people last month to 8.2 million people in this country. The percentage of the unemployed who have been without work for 27 weeks or more also remains dangerously high at 36.7 percent. An analysis by the Hamilton Project in February of this year found that we will not get back to full employment for another 10 years based on recent job-creation numbers. Meanwhile, economic growth remains sluggish. The most recent figures from the Bureau of Economic Analysis indicate that the U.S. real gross domestic product, GDP, grew at a tepid 1.8- percent annual rate in the first quarter of 2013--this year. Average annual real GDP growth was just 0.8 percent over President Obama's first term in office, the full 4 years. We are experiencing the weakest economic recovery since the Great Depression. As a consequence, government dependency in this country is on the rise. Under President Obama, the number of Americans on food stamps has increased by 47 percent to 47 million people; 8.9 million Americans collect disability pay, and that number is increasing by 70,000 people a month, unheard of in the past. These are alarming figures. How did we get there? I will explain. Overspending. The current job crisis, I believe, is a product of the 2008 financial meltdown we all went through. No one denies that President Obama was dealt a tough hand coming into office. He was. But the question is, What did he do about it? President Obama's first act in office, if you will recall, was to ram a $787 billion stimulus package through Congress. He promised the American people it would keep the unemployment rate from rising above 8 percent. Instead, the unemployment rate hit 10 percent in October of 2009 and remained above 8 percent for the next 43 consecutive months, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But President Obama's spending binge was just getting started. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the congressional budget deficit in 2009 was $1.413 trillion. In 2010, an additional $1.294 trillion. In 2011 it was another $1.3 trillion, and in 2012 $1.087 trillion--not billion, trillion. Although the 2013 deficit we are in now is projected to get below $1 trillion, it will still be $183 billion higher than any pre-Obama deficit. Looking at the big picture, the national public debt now stands at just under $17 trillion, an increase of nearly 60 percent under President Obama. What has been the result of this spending spree? Taxpayers got more debt, but job seekers didn't get more work. Compounding our fiscal difficulties, Social Security and Medicare remain on an unstable long-term footing. These programs alone already account for 38 percent of Federal spending. But over the next 25 years, the Congressional Budget Office projects their share--that is Social Security and Medicare--of GDP to increase by 40 percent. According to the trustees of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, Medicare is expected to run out of money in 13 years, and Social Security will go broke by 2033. Saving these essential programs requires Presidential leadership. Unfortunately, there has been none to speak of. President Obama's spending binges have precipitated multiple budget showdowns and, as a result, they have also presented many opportunities for spending and entitlement reform. But President Obama has not risen to the occasion yet, despite broad consensus that we must take action to save Social Security and Medicare. President Obama used the power of his office to campaign pre- and postelection for one thing, tax increases. Tax increases are not the solution to a spending problem. Tax hikes do not create jobs. Tax hikes will not generate growth. Tax hikes kill jobs and allow President Obama to spend more and for Congress and the President to borrow more. I believe what we need in this country is structural tax reform, not tax increases. According to the most recent data from the Internal Revenue Service, the top 1 percent of taxpayers, those making $369,000 or more, pay 37.38 percent of all income taxes. I wish to say it again. According to the IRS, 1 percent of the taxpayers paid 37 percent of all income taxes. The top 5 percent of taxpayers, those making $161,000 or more, paid 59 percent of all income taxes. Think about it. The top 10 percent of all taxpayers, those making $116,000 or more, paid 70 percent of all income taxes. The top 25 percent of taxpayers, those making $69,000 or more, pay 87 percent of all income taxes. The top 50 percent of taxpayers, those making $34,000 or more, pay 97 percent of all income taxes. Meanwhile, the other 50 percent, those making $34,000 or less, pay 2.36 percent, a little over, not quite 2.5 percent of all income taxes. In addition, approximately half of U.S. households pay no income tax. Despite these imbalances, President Obama increased taxes on the wealthiest Americans by $617 billion in January of this year. Still, a Heritage Foundation analysis of Treasury Department data finds that President Obama's fiscal year 2014 budget contains an additional $1.1 trillion in proposed tax increases. This is a tax-and-spend administration. The size and complexity of the Tax Code adds to the tax burden on the economy. The code contains 55,600 pages, I am told. Taking into account all explanatory materials and IRS rulings, the CCH-Standard Federal Tax Reporter comprises 70,000 pages. Even the instructions for the easiest tax form, the 1040EZ, run 46 pages. The total cost of complying with the individual and corporate tax requirement in this country was $168 billion last year. According to the IRS Taxpayer Advocate Service, there has been approximately 4,680 changes to the Tax Code since 2001. The Tax Code is filled with various credits, deductions, and corporate welfare. Analysis by the Joint Committee on Taxation finds that these so-called tax expenditures total $1.3 trillion. We could drastically simplify the Tax Code and lower individuals' rates by eliminating these provisions alone. Unfortunately, President Obama's approach to taxes is the same as his approach to spending: more, more, more--but no structural reforms that would help us establish the conditions for job creation and economic growth in this country, which we desperately need. Overregulation of the economy further deteriorates the conditions necessary for job creation and economic growth. The aggregate regulatory burden on American families and businesses is staggering. A study by the Competitive Enterprise Institute estimates that total costs for Americans to comply with Federal regulations reached $1.806 trillion in 2012. This translates to nearly $15,000 annually per family or 23 percent of average household income. According to the American Action Forum, the Federal Government so far this year alone has published regulations that will result in $61 billion in compliance costs and 80 million hours of paperwork. Despite the failure of the stimulus package, President Obama put the unemployed on hold for more than a year while he forced government-run health care through Congress. He promised his plan would reduce health insurance premiums by $2,500. Instead, premiums have already increased by that amount, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation employee health benefits survey. A recent Wall Street Journal analysis finds that premiums could double or even triple for healthy consumers, even under ObamaCare. All together, ObamaCare is 2,400 pages long and creates 159 new boards, commissions, and government offices. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the 10-year spending estimate for ObamaCare is $1.88 trillion. Analysis by the Joint Committee on Taxation shows that the law creates or raises 21 taxes totaling $1.1 trillion over the next 10 years. The impact of ObamaCare on hiring is not surprising. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Q2 2013 Small Business Survey, 71 percent of small businesses say the health care law makes it harder to hire people. The same survey finds that one-half of small businesses say they will either cut hours, reduce full-time employees, or replace full-time employees with part-time workers to avoid the mandate. In addition, Gallup finds that 41 percent of small business owners say they have held off on hiring new employees in response to ObamaCare. I welcome recent news that the Obama administration will temporarily delay the employer mandate. But in light of the evidence that ObamaCare is increasing health insurance costs and making it harder for the unemployed to find jobs, we should delay the whole law permanently for everyone. We should repeal it. Congress should start over and craft legislation that will actually lower health care costs and preserve high-quality care without crushing businesses with unnecessary regulations. President Obama's expansion of government did not end with ObamaCare. In 2010, he forced through Congress his purported response to the financial meltdown, the Dodd-Frank legislation. We were told that the financial regulatory system needed to be streamlined to prevent future bailouts, and that is true. Instead, Dodd-Frank created more government agencies than it eliminated. Moreover, the law totals 2,300 pages and calls for 400 new rules. A study by scholars at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University estimates that Dodd-Frank had already generated 2,109 restrictions in the Code of Federal Regulations by the end of 2011, and there is more to come. At this rate, they project a 26-percent increase in restrictions in relevant sections of the code once all Dodd-Frank rulemakings are finalized in the future. Dodd-Frank will create jobs only for regulatory compliance officers, not for people working every day in the United States. Earlier this year I introduced legislation that would require regulators to perform a rigorous cost-benefit analysis of new Dodd- Frank regulations. Under the legislation, a regulation dies if its costs exceed its benefits to the economy. Unfortunately, the Democratic majority in the Senate has not brought up this legislation for consideration. Some observers have subscribed to the cynical view that the legislation is nothing more than an effort to undercut financial reform. I am the only current Member of the Senate who voted against both financial deregulation in 1999 and the Wall Street bailout in 2008. I subscribe to the view that regulations should protect taxpayers without harming job creators. President Obama's regulatory zeal finds an outlet now in a war on coal in this country. Aware that it does not have the votes to jam his carbon tax agenda through Congress, he now will direct the Environmental Protection Agency to implement it by way of regulation. We all know his environmentalist crusade will kill jobs. An analysis by the Heritage Foundation estimates that drastically reducing the percentage of coal in our Nation's energy portfolio would, by 2030, kill more than 500,000 jobs and increase electricity prices by 20 percent. In contrast, a Wood Mackenzie study estimates 1.4 million American jobs could be created if the government adopted policies encouraging U.S. energy exploration and production. I believe the Obama environmental agenda will do more to put family budgets in the red than it will to make the world green. Instead of waging a war on coal jobs, I believe President Obama should approve and expedite the Keystone Pipeline. This would create tens of thousands of jobs and decrease energy bills for families and businesses. This is the type of clear-headed energy policy we should be pursuing in this country. In light of the existing and increasing regulatory burden, it is not surprising the Federal Reserve estimates that manufacturers, domestic producers, and other nonfinancial American companies are sitting on a record $1.78 trillion stockpile of cash. Why? If we are to create the conditions for real job creation in this country, we must start by streamlining the regulatory burden on the economy. The rules, restrictions, and mandates facing those who wish to undertake an entrepreneurial endeavor or expand their business through investment and innovation is mind-numbing. Monetary Policy I would also like to talk a few minutes on monetary policy--very dry, complicated, but very important to all of us. On July 17, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told members of the House Financial Services Committee ``if we were to tighten policy, the economy would tank.'' What does he mean? He was referring to the Federal Reserve's aggressive use of nontraditional monetary policy to prop up markets since the financial meltdown of 2008. The implied message is striking: The Fed is taking big risks through monetary policy because administration policy is not helping the economy. The Federal Reserve's balance sheet quantifies just how big a risk Chairman Bernanke feels he must take with so-called monetary stimulus. It currently stands--the Fed balance sheet--at $3.5 trillion, and continues to grow at $85 billion a month under the Fed's so-called quantitative easing program. Among the assets included in the Fed's balance sheet are $2 trillion in U.S. Treasury securities and $1.2 trillion in Federal agency mortgage-backed securities. To put the acceleration of the Fed's balance sheet into perspective, it took 95 years from the Fed's creation 100 years ago--1913--to reach $1 trillion. The Fed then added the second trillion in just 6 weeks, followed by the third trillion this past January. Under the current quantitative easing program, the Fed's balance sheet will reach $4 trillion in less than 6 months. Where does it end--$5 trillion, $6 trillion, $10 trillion? As with fiscal policy, we are in uncharted monetary policy waters. The Fed's unprecedented measures carry substantial risk and uncertainty to every man, woman, and child in this country. Should inflation increase, and it will, the Fed would have to tighten monetary policy to contain it. However, should the Fed tighten monetary policy, it risks stalling an already weak economy here. As deep as our fundamental economic challenges already are, the thought that one wrong monetary policy move by the Fed could cripple our entire economy is deeply troubling. In conclusion, I think we face a serious confluence of economic challenges in this country. It is obvious to me that President Obama's policies have not worked and they will not create work or jobs. Real job creation is a result of entrepreneurship and innovation and risk in the free market. I believe the government's role is to establish conditions for that to occur. We can do this by stabilizing our Nation's finances, simplifying our Tax Code, and streamlining our regulatory framework. The more President Obama and this administration cling to the tired liberal ideology that more government is always the answer, the longer this job crisis will persist. America deserves better. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I thank the chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee Senator Mikulski for moving ahead to complete action on this, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill. This is the first bill reported by the Appropriations Committee to be considered by the Senate on the floor. I believe it is important that Congress exercises constitutional authority over the funding of government. If we do not pass appropriations bills, the undesirable outcome is a government shutdown, which none of us wants. I believe, however, that the Senate is still on a precarious path. The majority is pursuing a top-line discretionary spending level of $1.058 trillion for the fiscal year 2014. This exceeds the Budget Control Act level by over $90 billion. The Budget Control Act is the law that establishes and enforces, through sequestration, limits on discretionary spending. In fiscal year 2013, most discretionary programs were forced to take arbitrary across-the-board cuts. We did not have to go in that direction for 2014. Over 1 month ago, all Republican members of the Appropriations Committee signed a letter to Chairwoman Mikulski calling for a top-line number of $967 billion that complies with the law. There could have been an alternative to sequestration. The Appropriations Committee could have written spending bills that adhered to the budget constraints of the law. This would have allowed Congress, not an indiscriminate formula, to make spending cuts of its choosing and to establish priorities, which we ultimately will have to do. This level would have also given Senate and House appropriators a better chance to conference individual bills. Instead, several of the appropriations bills between the two Chambers are so far apart that aligning them would be difficult, if not impossible. Regrettably, because of this disagreement, the endgame will probably be a continuing resolution. Every year that we have a continuing resolution or a series of them is another year that we drift further away from the regular order. In addition, even a continuing resolution for 2014 based on this year's discretionary spending would require another sequester under the Budget Control Act. Given the direction we are headed, I wish to vote against all appropriations bills that adhere to a total of $1.058 trillion. It is not because the bills are entirely unworthy of support. That is not true. It is because they will ultimately lead us to a statutory dead end and erode the ability of Congress to control how the government is funded, as we have done before. Therefore, I intend to oppose the motion to proceed, not because I don't think the bill has merit, as I said, but because in many ways it does. I will oppose the motion to proceed because it will inevitably lead us, once again, to an impasse that will result in further continuing resolutions and take us further away from any semblance of regular order. I yield the floor.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, before I begin my remarks on immigration reform, I would like to acknowledge the diligence and leadership of my colleague from Alabama Senator Sessions, who has spent a lot of hours on this floor and in the committee before this on the issue of immigration. I commend his relentless efforts to bring to light many of the problems and questions surrounding the legislation before us, some he has been talking about in the past few minutes. As a Member of the House of Representatives in 1986, I opposed the Simpson-Mazzoli Act, which granted amnesty to nearly 3 million illegal immigrants. Supporters of that law then promised that it constituted a one-time fix to our Nation's broken immigration system. Instead, the promise itself was broken. At least four times as many illegal immigrants now reside in the United States some 27 years later. Despite this failure, the Senate now tonight is considering legislation that repeats the mistakes of Simpson-Mazzoli. The provisions are different, but I believe the results will be the same. Still, supporters of this legislation before us promise border security in return for amnesty, just as proponents of Simpson-Mazzoli did. In light of these facts, here is a more credible promise: I believe the child of Simpson-Mazzoli will become the mother of all amnesties. You can call it what you want. Compounding the mistakes made a generation ago will ensure that the problem of illegal immigration revisits generations to come on a much grander scale. Therefore, I rise to urge my colleagues to reject this deeply flawed legislation. The subject of border security has been talked about in the Senate. During consideration of the Simpson-Mazzoli Act in 1986 in the Senate, my former Senate colleague and coauthor of that legislation stated the following: ``The American people, in my mind, will never accept a legalization program unless they can be assured this is a one-shot deal.'' The assurances to which he referred were border security and tough enforcement of immigration laws. Specifically, Simpson-Mazzoli called for 50 percent more Border Patrol personnel for 2 years and new penalties for employers who hired illegal immigrants. Unfortunately, as we know, the former proved insufficient and the latter was hollow. But it was too late. Nearly 3 million illegal immigrants had already been granted amnesty by the time most lawmakers figured out that the assurances were basically a sham. Despite the drastic increase in illegal immigration in the intervening years, supporters of the bill now before the Senate make similar assurances of border security in return for a form of amnesty. They say there will be a surge in Border Patrol and a fence along the southern border. We have heard it before, but they claim two main distinctions between their promise and the one we heard in 1986. First, the supporters of this bill say this bill does not contain amnesty but a tough path to citizenship. Second, they say this bill will secure the border before legalization occurs. But will it? I believe neither claim holds water. Under this legislation, once the Secretary of Homeland Security notifies Congress that the Department has begun to implement a so- called comprehensive southern border security strategy and a southern border fencing strategy, she can commence processing applications for registered provisional immigrant status. In addition, the Secretary must begin implementing these plans within 180 days of enactment of this legislation. I will clarify the legal talk: No later than 6 months after this bill becomes law, those who came here illegally will be allowed to stay legally. I will clarify that further: That is amnesty. The sequence is also noteworthy. No fence must be built before amnesty is granted. No surge in Border Patrol must occur either. Those things come after, not before. So I return to the fundamental question: Will these measures as structured stop illegal immigration? The Congressional Budget Office, CBO, says no. Instead, CBO provides only a vague and uninspiring assessment that the legislation will slow illegal immigration by some amount greater than 25 percent--if, and only if, the dubious promises of this legislation are fulfilled. Perhaps that is the more salient point: We don't know what the impact of this will be. We don't know what we are doing. We only know that even the best outcome will not be nearly enough. I believe we should know what we are doing. We should know the border is secure before any discussion of legalization begins in the Senate. But there are economic consequences to all of this too that people need to think of. What we do know is that the economic consequences of this massive amnesty will make struggling Americans struggle even harder. By some estimates, this legislation will produce a surge of more than 30 million immigrants in just the first decade after enactment. Some people believe more. CBO projects that passing this legislation brings grim news about what this will mean for working Americans as well as those looking for work. For example, the unemployment rate, according to CBO, will accelerate over the next 6 years; average wages for Americans will drop over the next 10 years; meanwhile, average wages will rise for those granted amnesty or legalization; economic output per capita will decrease over the next 10 years; and the on-budget deficit will increase by more than $14 billion over the next 10 years. In short, this legislation is projected to increase Americans' difficulty in finding a job and then reduce their paycheck when they get one. In my judgment, that is reason enough to oppose any legislation like this. I understand that supporters of this legislation point to better economic projections in the so-called outyears. However, even if those projections prove accurate--which we don't know--we should never put the economic well-being of Americans on hold. Finally, I am deeply concerned that this legislation will further strain our overcommitted entitlement and welfare programs. Our Nation, as we all know, is over $17 trillion in debt. We should be working on a long-term plan to put our Nation back on sound fiscal footing, not adding to the burden. There is also the issue of competitiveness. Long-term thinking would also aggressively promote American competitiveness. Real immigration reform presents a golden opportunity to advance that cause. Unfortunately, this legislation misses the mark. By some estimates, China and India together graduate nearly 1 million engineers each year from their universities. The United States, by comparison, graduates approximately 120,000 engineers. In addition, the Manhattan Institute estimates that 51 percent of engineering Ph.D.s and 41 percent of physical sciences Ph.D.s who are foreign born are forced to leave the United States once they get their degree. I believe if we care about immigration reform, if we want to continue to lead the world, we must attract and retain the best and the brightest minds. Yet this legislation would cause a tectonic population and labor market shift in the opposite direction. Specifically, CBO projects that among the tens of millions of immigrants who will come to America under this legislation, there will be seven low-skilled workers for each high-skilled worker. It is little wonder then that CBO projects that Americans' wages will fall. Two provisions in the legislation will effect this change. First, the current cap on family-based visas will be removed. This will create an unlimited influx of low-skilled workers. Second, the cap on visas for high-skilled workers will be increased, though not nearly enough to meet the demand. The legislation will also impose onerous new restrictions on employers seeking to hire such workers. The authors of this legislation claimed that it contains a merit-based approach, which will ensure that more high-skilled immigrants receive visas. They emphasize that their point system emphasizes higher education, consistent employment, and English proficiency. Yet closer examination of the details reveals that points would also be awarded on the basis of nonmerit factors, such as family ties and civic involvement. In effect, this dilutes not only the point system but also claims of a merit-based approach that will promote American competitiveness. I think we have some of the best universities in the world. They attract a lot of the most gifted individuals from around the globe, deepening our country's vast pool of talent. This, in turn, attracts companies here and abroad, seeking the brightest minds in math, science, and engineering. Graduates will go onto attain high-paying jobs or even create jobs themselves if they are allowed to stay here. I believe we must do more to allow such talent to stay, especially in light of an increasingly global and competitive economy. In closing, I would quote Mark Twain, who once cleverly observed: ``History does not repeat itself but it does rhyme.'' In the context of immigration reform, the promises we hear today sound a lot like those we heard in 1986, but this time the amnesty will be much bigger. I believe the consequences will be many: undermining the rule of law, failing to secure the border, increasing economic difficulties for American workers and job seekers, eroding our Nation's finances, and weakening our competitive position internationally. I believe one of our fundamental responsibilities as lawmakers is to support policies that foster the conditions for job creation and economic prosperity in America. I believe we must remain a welcoming nation, but we must always put Americans first. In my judgment this legislation fails in many corners, and it fails most tests. Accordingly, I will respectfully but firmly oppose it, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield the floor.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to Andrew Downs who, at age 15, has been named to the first ever National Youth Orchestra of the United States. Andrew is a native of Irondale, AL, and is a sophomore at the Alabama School of Fine Arts. He is the principal bassist for the Alabama Symphony Youth Orchestra. The National Youth Orchestra of the United States of America is an initiative of Carnegie Hall's Weill Music Institute that brings together 120 of the most promising and talented young musicians from across the country to play together across the Nation and the globe. This year marks their inaugural session. Andrew was selected out of a pool of 2,500 applicants from all 50 States, and is clearly one of Alabama's most talented young musicians. He is a member of the National Junior Honor Society and also plays the violin, cello, and piano. He hopes to one day pursue a career as a bass player for a symphony orchestra. This talented young man will be the only Alabamian in the orchestra, as well as one of only 10 bassists selected. I am proud to represent a State that is home to promising young individuals such as Andrew, who are committed to displaying excellence in their education and the arts. Further, I wish Andrew Downs all the best as he embarks on his journey playing with the National Youth Orchestra. This is a true honor bestowed upon a very deserving student.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, this afternoon I, rise to defend the Second Amendment to our Constitution. Recent mass killings, such as those in Connecticut and Colorado, are the impetus for the gun control legislation we are discussing before the Senate now. I mourn the victims of these senseless acts of violence carried out by serious and disturbed individuals. Unfortunately, this legislation, I believe, would do nothing to prevent such tragedies going forward. The harsh but unavoidable fact is no amount of government intervention can prevent irrational people from doing terrible things. Therefore, we should not react to these tragedies in an irrational manner in the Senate which would erode a fundamental right of every citizen in the United States. The Second Amendment states, as you well know, unambiguously, ``The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'' It makes plain to criminals their targets have the right to defend themselves, their families, and their property. Since criminals do not follow the law and never will follow the law, new restrictions will hinder only the law-abiding among us, I am afraid. Make no mistake, this is only the first assault on the Second Amendment. More background checks today, gun registration tomorrow, who knows what will follow after this. Congress should reject it all now. My opposition to the legislation before the Senate is not abstract. Gun control laws have proven ineffective in reducing violent crime. As gun ownership in the United States has increased over recent years, nationwide crime rates have decreased. Nonpartisan studies, however, show no correlation between the now-expired assault weapons ban and the decrease in crime rates. Still, violence has spiked in certain parts of this country. In Chicago, for example, murder rates are soaring. Yet Chicago has among the most Draconian and restrictive gun laws in the country. These trends have developed not because of gun control legislation but in spite of it. Despite this failed record, the legislation before the Senate pushes more of the same. This so-called compromise amendment would do nothing but compromise our Second Amendment rights. First, it would drastically expand background checks for gun purchases in an inconsistent and unenforceable manner. The legislation mandates background checks for all firearms purchases at gun shows between two nonlicensed parties. Yet it is unclear whether the same buyer and seller would have to run a background check if they meet at a gun show but wait until it is over to execute the sale. The legislation also mandates background checks for any gun purchase pursuant to an advertisement by a buyer or seller. This would be extremely difficult to enforce under a narrow definition of what constitutes an advertisement. Under the extremely broad definition provided in this amendment, enforcement would be virtually impossible. Will determined criminals not simply avoid gun shows and advertisements? We can bet they would. I believe we should not restrict transactions between law-abiding citizens, especially when we will not prevent such transactions between criminals. This amendment would also allow health care providers to place a patient in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System database. I believe this would violate patients' privacy and remove their Second Amendment rights based on subjective judgments and without any clear guidelines or due process. It is unclear whether a patient must be informed of the health care provider's decision to submit his or her private health information to authorities. This provision could very well discourage those who need mental health services from seeking them for fear their constitutional rights may be abrogated. We should not put doctors and patients in this position. In addition, the FBI estimates enforcing these background checks would cost approximately $100 million annually. At the same time, this amendment would prohibit the FBI from charging federally licensed firearms dealers to run these background checks. To carry this out if it were to become law, the money must come from someone. Will it be gun buyers or taxpayers? Either way, I oppose it. Again, this legislation is just the first step. It would lay the groundwork for even more Draconian and ineffective gun control measures. As one of the Justice Department's leading crime researchers has stated, the government's ability to implement near-universal background checks would rely, at least in part, on ``requiring gun registration.'' I oppose that. Mr. President, there are as many guns in this country perhaps as there are people, according to some estimates. That is more than 300 million people, and there are probably over 300 million guns. The bureaucracy we have today cannot track all of the people illegally residing in this country, why then would anyone believe the bureaucracy could track all of the guns illegally possessed in this country? And who would pay for that? Would gun owners again be subject to still more fees or taxes for exercising their Second Amendment rights? Who would have access to this so-called registry? Would the public know who owns guns and who does not? Who would ensure this sensitive information is protected and not used for political purposes, and how? We do not know the answers to these questions, but we do know that such restrictions will not prevent the next tragedy. We should not start down this dangerous road. What should we do instead? I have a few suggestions. Instead of undermining the Second Amendment, Congress should focus its attention on three areas: First, I believe robust prosecution of violent criminals is the best deterrent to violent crime. Prosecutors should punish to the fullest extent of the law individuals who misuse guns, knives, or anything else to commit violent crimes. There should be no leniency whatsoever for the commission of such crimes. Secondly, we should examine and address any deficiencies--and we have them--in our mental health system. Time and again we have seen a strong connection between mental illness and violent crime. We should not fall prey to the delusion government can prevent all bad things, nor should we assume simply throwing money at the problem will solve it. We should, instead, do a better job of helping those with mental illnesses before their problems spiral out of control. Third, I would suggest we should weigh the impact of violence in the entertainment industry on violent crime in this Nation. Many video games, movies, television shows, and songs contain graphic depictions of violence. Common sense tells us that glorified violence can distort impressionable minds, particularly those afflicted with mental illnesses or mental challenges. Still, many in Hollywood defend the First Amendment to the Constitution with the same wild-eyed zeal they trash the Second Amendment to the Constitution. I stand here to defend the Bill of Rights in its entirety. In closing, let me mention that since January 1 of this year I have held public meetings in each of my State's 67 counties. Overall, my constituents are deeply concerned about any infringement upon their Second Amendment rights. They are concerned about their ability to protect themselves, they are concerned about their ability to protect their families, and they are concerned about their ability to protect their property. They are concerned that the activities, traditions, and way of life they have long and peaceably enjoyed, and which are protected by the Constitution, could possibly be outlawed. They are concerned they may unknowingly run afoul of a new gun control law because the proposals before us are so illogical and inconsistent and contrary to common sense. I believe this bill is an overall legislative misfire. I have outlined what I believe would constitute a clear-eyed response to the situation at hand. I will continue to vigorously oppose gun control legislation, and I will continue to stand firm in defense of the Second Amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. SHELBY. I will be glad to yield for a question, but my time is up.

Mr. SHELBY. May I respond?

Mr. SHELBY. I would tell the distinguished Senator and my friend from West Virginia, for whom I have a lot of respect, that I totally disagree. This is the first step in the erosion of our rights under the Second Amendment. That is why I oppose this legislation. I totally and fundamentally disagree with the author.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. Gordon Moulton in honor of his retirement after 46 years of service to the University of South Alabama. Gordon dedicated his life to the success of the university and its surrounding communities and served as university president for 16 years. I am honored to call this remarkable man my friend and fellow Alabamian. Gordon received his B.S. in Industrial Management from the Georgia Institute of Technology and an M.B.A. from Emory University. He was also awarded an honorary doctorate from Spring Hill College in 2006. He began his service at the University of South Alabama 3 years after its founding in 1966 as a business faculty member and went on to launch the School of Computer and Information Sciences as its first dean. He was named president of the university in 1998. Gordon's numerous successes at the university include increasing academic programs and scholarships, securing grants for cancer research, expanding student opportunities, development and renovation of various facilities, and the creation of the USA Research and Technology Park which has provided many jobs and opportunities for high-tech industry partnerships in south Alabama. During his tenure as President, the University of South Alabama was able to launch ``Campaign USA,'' a highly successful fundraising effort that has raised millions for the university. He also worked to form a critical partnership with Infirmary Health System which has been instrumental in making improvements in area health care. For his work in the area, Gordon was named ``Mobilian of the Year'' in 2002. Over the years, Gordon and his wife Geri have donated generously to the University of South Alabama, most recently presenting the University with $3 million in order to fund cancer research at the USA Mitchell Cancer Institute. Their generosity, compassion, and dedication to finding a cure for cancer is both admirable and humbling. In addition to funding for cancer research, they have given millions to fund Moulton Tower and Alumni Plaza, Geri Moulton Children's Park at the USA Children's and Women's Hospital, and various scholarships and athletic endeavors. Today, it is rare to see an individual so invested in one institution for the larger part of his career, but the work that Gordon Moulton has done at and for the University of the South will forever be remembered by its students, faculty, board of trustees, and the communities in and around Mobile that have benefitted from the University. I congratulate him on his retirement and thank him for his decades of service to one of Alabama's great educational institutions.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. How much time?

Mr. SHELBY. I will try to be careful and quick. I wish to thank the distinguished Senator from Washington for yielding the time. I rise today to once again express my concerns about the fiscal problems facing our Nation. Thus far this year I have held public meetings in 61 of my State's 67 counties. Without exception, my State's top concern is our Nation's unsustainable debt and its effect on job creation and economic growth. Alabamians know the Federal debt currently stands at nearly $17 trillion. Yet they see that the Democratic budget before us does not balance--not in 10 years, perhaps not ever. They know the Federal debt has increased by $6 trillion under President Obama. Yet they see that the Democratic budget proposes to pile on $7 trillion more. My constituents know that excessive taxes are choking job creation in this country. Yet they see that the Democratic budget costs $1.2 trillion of new job-killing taxes. They know the stimulus package was an abject failure. My constituents understand that the more we borrow, the more we must pay back in interest. Yet they see that under the Democratic budget, we will pay more in interest on the debt--$791 billion--than we will spend on national defense. They know that fiscal reform without entitlement reform is meaningless. Yet they hear no mention of entitlements in the Democratic budget. It has been 1,423 days since the Senate passed a budget. My constituents waited that long for this. There is little wonder that trepidation over our Nation's future is so prevalent. No dominant power in world history has remained strong with a weak economy--not the Persians, not the Greeks, not the Romans, not the British, not anyone. Under the Democratic budget, our Nation would learn that lesson the hard way. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, this amendment would create a deficit- neutral reserve fund for legislation that requires financial regulators to perform rigorous cost-benefit analysis of their proposals. If this analysis determines that a proposed rule's cost exceeds its benefits, the rule should not be implemented. Given the far-reaching scope many new financial rules will have on our markets, I believe it is imperative that regulators conduct thorough cost-benefit analysis to fully understand how these rules will affect our economy. Independent final regulators operate under a patchwork of Federal laws that require varying degrees of economic analysis and provide too much discretion to regulators. As a result, American job creators are under siege from capricious rulemaking activities. Regulations should be based on solid evidence and supported by robust economic analysis, not the arbitrary preferences of bureaucrats.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, we have just voted, as everybody knows, on the Mikulski-Shelby substitute. Our next vote is a cloture vote. Then, assuming cloture is invoked, we will have final passage. It is my understanding that the House is waiting on this bill. I hope we can get it to them as quickly as we can. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. SHELBY. We know we are ready to vote. I urge everyone to support this bill. It needs to go to the House. The House, I think, is ready to act on it. This will fund the government through September 30. It is the first big step toward regular order.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, to some extent, I want to repeat what Senator Mikulski just said. No. 1, this would avoid a government shutdown. That should appeal to everybody. I think it appeals to the American people. It should appeal to everybody in this body tonight. No. 2, it enforces the Budget Control Act and sequester levels. I will say it again. It enforces the Budget Control Act and sequester levels. Granted, perhaps not everything is ideal, but what is here? There will be ample time to address some of the issues. Some of the issues that have been raised are bona fide issues that we were unable to address for one reason or another in this process. But I assure my colleagues--and I have been working with my colleagues and with Senator Mikulski's Democratic colleagues--that if we do not move forward, I am afraid there may be no future appropriations bills, which is not good for anyone in this legislative process. We have lurched from crisis to crisis. The CR is running out. What we are asking to do is to fund the government until September 30. I urge my colleagues to support cloture and move this process forward. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes this evening to thank the majority leader, Senator Reid, and also the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, for helping us come together, being where we are thus far. I also wish to thank Senator Mikulski, the chairperson of the full Committee on Appropriations. We have been working and we have made some progress. We would have liked to have finished this bill tonight. There are a lot of amendments--I think 90-something that Senator Mikulski said. I hope people will try to work this weekend and try to get through this. We need to pass this bill. This is one of the cleanest appropriations bills I have seen since I have been up here. We said no to the Democrats, Senator Mikulski has, and I have said no to the Republicans on some things. We have a continuing resolution--I call it a hybrid-- with five appropriations bills. We can do this. This would take care of the government--in other words, not go from crisis to crisis--until the end of this fiscal year, September 30, where we can get on the budget and other things. America is watching us. We are trying to respond in a bipartisan way. I hope we can make a lot of progress this weekend. Our staffs are going to be here working. We are going to be here working. Come Monday, we need to move this bill.

Mr. SHELBY. Absolutely.

Mr. SHELBY. Because of both of them. I thank the Senator.

Mr. SHELBY

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

Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I would be remiss, while we are on the Senate floor, as I was thinking about Senator Harkin, Senator Mikulski, both senior Members--she is the chairperson of the Senate Appropriations Committee where I have had the privilege to serve a number of years. We all go back to our House days. That is where I first met Senator Harkin. He was a couple of years younger then, and so was I. Senator Mikulski and I were on the same committees over there. Senator Harkin came to the Senate a couple of years before we did. We have been involved together on the issues and against each other and so forth, but we stayed friends. And I think Senator Harkin is absolutely right. Senator Mikulski is very on point on regular order; that what we are trying to do on the Appropriations Committee--and this is a big start here--is to go back to the way we used to do things--regular order. We would have our spirited debates--and they were spirited--in the subcommittees of Appropriations, the full committee would come to the floor, and we would debate it, vote on it, and go to a conference with the House, work it out, come back, and live with it. We haven't done that in a long time. What we are trying to do now is get back on that track, and this is a big first step. Having said that, I would like to take just a few minutes to speak on Chairman Harkin's amendment. I believe there are three critical points my colleagues should understand about this amendment. First, the draft omnibus that has been talked about was never finalized. There were more than a dozen significant items not agreed to at the time negotiations ended in December. A lot of those negotiations were done at the staff level. Critical decisions regarding health care, education, and labor policies and billions of dollars in funding decisions at that point remained undecided. They were never finalized. I think these provisions have been decided and put in this amendment without consultation by Senator Harkin. These items included such critical issues as conscience protections for health care providers and provisions limiting the job-killing rules by the National Labor Relations Board. Those were critical issues for us. Second, the Harkin amendment replaces a bipartisan continuing resolution which the distinguished chairperson has been talking about here for 2 days which includes key provisions in this bill we filed which would support research at the National Institutes of Health and emergency operations at the Centers for Disease Control with a 160-page bill that no Republican has approved. I believe the Harkin amendment both begins new programs and makes authorization changes to programs. In addition, any program that did not receive an increase in funding during negotiation on the draft omnibus that he has talked about is cut in an across-the-board cut. These reductions hit critical job-training programs and funding for hospital preparedness. Finally, if the Harkin amendment is agreed to, it will undo a very fragile consensus and poison the entire continuing resolution we have put before us, putting our government at the risk of a shutdown. None of us want that. House leadership has already stated they cannot and will not support the inclusion of the Harkin amendment, and I don't believe we should risk funding the entire Federal Government to do so. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I have been listening to the remarks of my colleague from Maryland, and as we say down South, she is spot on. Before she became chairperson of the Appropriations Committee, she was a member of that committee for many years. We worked together when I was chairman of the subcommittee and she was the ranking member and when she was the chairperson and I was the ranking member. We both came from the House. We were on the same committee in the House. We worked together. We struggled with each other from time to time, but in the end, we knew we had to come up with a product, and that is what we are trying to do here today. I was hoping we could bring this bill to the floor. As the Senator from Maryland has been saying, there are a lot of Members who want to offer amendments. We could offer some amendments and debate them tonight and perhaps even vote on them tonight. We know we have this deadline. At the end of March the CR expires, along with the funding of the Government of the United States. I don't think any party--Democrat or Republican--is interested in any way of going to the brink again. It serves no purpose. It creates uncertainty in the marketplace; it creates uncertainty with the role we play in the Senate and the House. As the Senator from Maryland has said, we have worked together. We have a continuing resolution which came from the House, with the Department of Defense and the MILCON-VA--military construction and VA-- in it to fund until September 30, which is the fiscal year. It is about 6 months from now. We have added to the legislation which we hope to bring before the Senate the Commerce, Justice, Science Subcommittee, of which she is the subcommittee chair and I am the ranking member. We have worked together on that. Agriculture, which affects everybody in this country one way or the other, and homeland security, which is the essence of the security of this country at home, have been added by the Senate. We scrubbed these bills all weekend. Both sides scrubbed them. I have given up things I would personally like, and she has given up things, probably including some things from the Democratic leadership. We have done the same over here. We are doing this to show the American people that America comes first. We need to show we can work together. We need to pass these bills. The sooner they get up here, the sooner amendments can be offered by Republicans and Democrats, the sooner we get the process working and we get into the debates. That is what this legislative body is all about. The CR we are bringing up--or the hybrid CR--is funded at the fiscal year 2012 levels, and it is consistent with the Budget Control Act. It would leave the sequester in effect. It gives some leeway--some but not unbridled--to enable the situation with sequester to maybe work a little better. I think it is good policy and bad procedure. We are going to have to cut because we cannot sustain deficits of $1 trillion. We cannot continue to go down the road we are on. We have to change the trajectory of this country. We cannot sustain ourselves if we have a $20 trillion or $25 trillion debt. Whether you are a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, or whatever you are, you should want a strong monetary policy and a strong economic policy. We have a few more years left, and this is a good start here in the Senate. If we can get this bill up and pass it, then the House will do something. We will fund the government until September 30, which is what we are supposed to do. If we do that, then we can start on the 2014 budget. From there we can perhaps go to regular order. That is what we wish to do in the appropriations process so we are not going from crisis to crisis. What we have done in the House and the Senate--and the White House is involved in this too--in recent years is we have been lurching from crisis to crisis, and then we come up to the deadline and people say: Oh, we have to have certainty. So we kick the can down the road a few more yards. That is not the way to do business. This country is too important. The business community needs certainty, people in government need certainty, and I think this is a good first start. I hope we can get this process moving. I thank the Chair.

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