Floor Statements

I move to proceed to Calendar No. 32, S. 649.

Mr. President, the time until 11:30 today will be equally divided between the majority and the minority. The Democrats will control the first 30 minutes and the Republicans the final 30 minutes. At 11:30 the Senate will proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of Patty Shwartz to be a circuit judge for the Third Circuit. At noon there will be a rollcall vote on her nomination. The Senate will then recess from 12:30 until 2:15 to allow for our weekly caucus meetings.

Congratulating the Louisville Cardinals

Mr. President, I first wish to extend my congratulations to Senator McConnell and the Louisville Cardinals for their successful NCAA championship. It was remarkable how they were always coming from behind to wind up winning. They did it not with offense but with defense. I was very impressed with the team but most of all impressed with their coach Rick Pitino. Rick Pitino on yesterday was also selected, with Jerry Tarkanian, to be a member of the Basketball Hall of Fame, and certainly they deserve that--both of them.

In addition to congratulating my friend Senator McConnell, it is also important to recognize my deputy chief of staff Dave McCallum, who is a rabid Louisville fan. When I went down to participate in a program Senator McConnell set up, I took David McCallum with me. He loves those Louisville Cardinals, and today he has more reason to like them and tonight even more reason because in the championship game tonight we have the University of Connecticut playing the Louisville Cardinals for the women's championship. So I am very mindful of how strongly Senator McConnell feels about his Louisville Cardinals.

Yes. I just wanted to say I won't get into the politics of sports in Kentucky because I don't understand them, but I know how much Senator McConnell cares about the Louisville Cardinals.

Mr. President, I mentioned the Basketball Hall of Fame. Jerry Tarkanian made it into the hall of fame--20 years too late, but he made it. Why didn't he get in earlier? Because this courageous man took on the NCAA, which has absolute control over college athletes. I hope that as the years go by, we as a Congress will take a look at that more closely.

But I don't want to move away from the important day it is in Jerry Tarkanian's life. Jerry is now over 80. He doesn't get around like he used to, and he doesn't chew on the towels like he is famous for. Here is a man who was held out of the hall of fame for far too long. This man won 990 games as a coach. He had more than an 80-percent winning record. He is a very fine man with a good family. His wife is a member of the Las Vegas City Council. He

brought such excitement to Las Vegas. He coached the Runnin' Rebels into four final fours, won the championship once, and but for some politics within the university system, he would probably still be coaching there. Some things came up so that he no longer was able to coach at UNLV. But I admire him as a person and certainly send my congratulations to all of those Runnin' Rebel fans today because we have something to celebrate.

Finally, he took on the NCAA and won. He won a large money judgment against them as a result of how they treated him--it was so unfair--him and his players. People throughout the State of Nevada who played for him and who are now successful businesspeople--they are teaching professionals around the State, they are doing all kinds of good things in the State and around the country because of Jerry Tarkanian and the team he had and mainly his wife. She was so good with those young men who came to UNLV. She was, among other things, a speech therapist. She understood these young men, and they cared about her as much as they did about Jerry.

Gun Control

Mr. President, as do most Americans, I believe the second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. As a young boy--12 years old--on my birthday I got a gun, but it wasn't some little pea shooter, it was a blunderbuss, a 12 gauge shotgun, bolt action. Boy, that is a big gun. I still have it. I have had it reblued. I had the stock reworked. It is a beautiful gun. My parents sent away through the Sears catalog for that present for me. That gun was a real extravagance for them. It cost $28, but, oh, did I have fun with that great big gun that was bigger than I, and it kicked so much then, but I could handle it. I didn't get to shoot it a lot because shotgun shells were expensive.

So, like most Americans, I also believe the right to bear arms must be balanced with the rights of all little boys and girls in this country, whether they live in inner-city Chicago or sleepy Newtown, CT, to grow up safe from the threat of gun violence. Most gun owners are good. The vast majority of gun owners are good, responsible people who love target shooting and hunting and want to protect their homes and their families. But we have a responsibility to do everything in our power to keep guns out of the hands of convicted criminals and those who suffer from mental illnesses that make them a danger to themselves and to others. We understand that now more than ever with the terrible slaughters in Aurora, CO, and Newtown, CT. We have a responsibility as a body to safeguard the most vulnerable and our most precious resource--the kids, our children, our babies.

The terrible tragedy at Newtown was a wake-up call. We are really failing, and we need to do more. Newtown will always remember those little boys and girls, some of them shot multiple times, little children--5-year-old kids, 6-year-old children.

These are just names to us, but to the people of Newtown, Olivia isn't just a name; Olivia is a little girl who had a family who loved her. Newtown is a little town, relatively speaking. They know Jack. We have a responsibility to safeguard these little kids, and unless we do something, more than what is the law today, we have failed.

It is long past time for a thoughtful examination of the lax laws and culture of violence that put Newtown and Aurora, Oak Creek and Carson City, NV, on the map for such a devastating reason. I only hope my Republican colleagues will allow us to have that conversation. I hope Republicans will stop trying to shut down debate and start engaging on the tough issues we were sent to Washington to tackle.

There has been a huge cry in this body--for 2 years plus the months of this Congress--of people saying: Let's have regular order. Let's have amendments. So I was relatively kind of stunned when I got a letter during our break from 13 Republican Senators. They are the same Senators who yell and scream the most about regular order and amendments, but in this letter to me--short, direct, and to the point-- they say: You are going to have no ability to go to the gun legislation because we are going to stop it. We don't think there should be a discussion or debate on guns.

Now, how would I describe these 13 Senators who sent me this letter? I want to do this respectfully because they have a right to their opinions even if they are illogical and even if they are speaking out of both sides of their mouths. What does that mean, speaking out of both sides of their mouths? It is very succinct what it means. It means--and it is described as a verb, looking it up on the Internet--to say different things to different people about the same subject. That is what they have done. They have been yelling and screaming: We want regular order.

The other night when we were doing the budget that went on until 5 o'clock in the morning, one of the Senators who signed this letter stood and said: We want to offer all the amendments we want to offer. No one has the right to stop us from offering amendments. So that is what we did. But today he feels differently. Today he is speaking out of both sides of his mouth, saying different things to different people on the same subject.

A former Republican Congressman from Florida is now a talk show host, and he is very popular. He has a program called ``Morning Joe.'' Here is what ``Morning Joe'' is reported as having said: Scarborough tears into GOP filibuster on gun bill and says, ``Is anybody awake in my party?'' Here is what he said:

With 92 percent of Americans supporting background checks,

Scarborough noted, it is really hard to figure out what the

political calculation is. It is a 90-10 issue that involves

the massacre of 20 children. Is anybody awake in my party on

the Hill?

That is what former Congressman Joe Scarborough said.

As President Obama has said, it is impossible to prevent every senseless tragedy, but we owe it to our children to at least try.

It is only common sense that felons who couldn't pass a background check in a gun store should not be able to walk into a gun show and buy a deadly weapon.

This is not hyperbole. Forty percent of the guns sold in the United States each year--including many used to commit crimes--are sold legally at gun shows or through private sales without even the most basic background check.

Three years ago, one of those guns--a shotgun purchased legally without a background check during a 2008 gun show in Kingman, AZ; about 90 miles from Las Vegas--was used to devastate the largest courthouse we have in Nevada, the brandnew Lloyd D. George Federal Courthouse in Las Vegas. It happened just as prospective jurors were arriving for the day.

This man walked in and started shooting. He blasted at every place that only a gunshot can do. He killed Stanley Cooper of Sandy Valley, who was a security guard. He was killed instantly in this hail of buckshot going around the courthouse. He ran after his gun became empty to reload, and he was eventually killed; that is, the man who caused all this carnage.

But Stanley Cooper, this good man who was there, left behind a brother, four sons, a daughter, seven grandchildren, and two great- grandchildren. He loved to spend time with his grandchildren and great- grandchildren. He loved horses and spending time outdoors. That is why he lived in Sandy Valley.

He was no stranger to guns. He spent 26 years serving his community as a Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department officer. The man who shot him, on the other hand, was a convicted felon with no right to carry a firearm. He certainly could not have passed a criminal background check. But the shooter never had to get one. He just went to one of these gun shows and bought this shotgun--the same basic shotgun I got when I was a 12-year-old.

Requiring a simple background check every time a gun is sold is common sense.

As a brandnew member of the Nevada State legislature, I was a kid, but Sheriff Lamb, who was the sheriff of Clark County at the time--and now they have a TV program running; Dennis Quaid is playing Ralph Lamb--he came to me and said: I need to do something because we need people to wait a little while before they purchase a handgun.

I went to the legislature not understanding the process totally, but I introduced legislation that passed and became the law, that in Nevada if

someone purchases a handgun, they have to wait 3 days to pick it up. It is believed that alone has saved the lives of many people. Sometimes people, in a fit of passion, will purchase a handgun to do bad things with it--even as my dad did--kill themselves. Waiting a few days helps.

Requiring a simple background check every time a gun is sold is common sense. We are not asking for a 3-day waiting period. We have technology now. That does not take that long. But it is common sense. That is why more than 90 percent of Americans--including the vast majority of gun owners, the majority of people who belong to the NRA-- support our proposal to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those with mental illnesses. That is what a universal background check is all about.

This legislation would also crack down on anyone who buys a gun as part of a scheme to funnel it to criminals--reducing violent crime and protecting police officers. The three things that are in the bill that is now before this body all were reported out of the Judiciary Committee, led by Pat Leahy. If anyone thinks that Pat Leahy is a wimp on guns, they have another thought coming. He is from the State of Vermont. He boasts about a gun he has. He has a .50 caliber gun. I do not know why he wants one, but he has one. He is a man who loves to shoot his guns. So this bill is reported out of the Judiciary Committee, led by one of the people who knows as much about guns as many people in this body--and more, I should say.

This bill that came out of that committee gives schools across the country the resources to improve security and keep kids safe. It is called school safety. It has Federal trafficking in it.

This legislation will not prevent every crime, especially those awful crimes, and background checks will not keep guns out of the hands of every violent madman, and we all know that. But we owe it to the American people to act as if there is a chance to save even one life-- whether that life belongs to a great-grandfather such as Stanley Cooper or these babies who barely began to live in Newtown, CT.

They deserve a vote.

Recognition of the Minority Leader

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

Madam President, I have a cloture motion at the desk.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum required under rule XXII be waived.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 77 and the Senate proceed to its consideration.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 94.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Madam President, there are two bills at the desk and I ask for their first reading.

I now ask for their second reading, but I object to my own request for both of these measures.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, April 10, 2013; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 649, the gun safety legislation; that the next hour be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the first half controlled by the Republicans and the second half controlled by the majority.

Madam President, this evening, a few minutes ago, cloture was filed on the gun safety legislation. Unless there is some agreement reached tomorrow, we will vote on this Thursday morning sometime.

Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the previous order with respect to Executive Calendar No. 14, the nomination of Patty Shwartz to be U.S. circuit judge for the Third Circuit, begin at 11:30 a.m. tomorrow, April 9, with all other provisions remaining in effect.

There will be no votes today. The first vote of the week then will be tomorrow morning at noon on the confirmation of the Shwartz nomination.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 50; that the nomination be confirmed and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nomination; that any related statements be printed in the Record; that President Obama be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Madam President, I would like to welcome back the Presiding Officer and all the staff. I hope our 2-week Easter break was refreshing to everyone.

This month, the Senate will deal with a number of important matters, including judicial nominations and Cabinet nominations and a water resources measure.

Gun Violence

The Senate will also consider a package of legislation designed to safeguard Americans from gun violence.

In the wake of last year's terrible tragedy in Newtown, CT--a mass shooting we will never forget and that claimed the lives of 20 little, tiny boys and girls and 6 educators--I said shortly thereafter I would bring antiviolence measures to the Senate, and we are going to do that. It is time Congress engaged in a meaningful conversation and a thoughtful debate on how to change the law and culture that allowed this violence to grow so much.

I have said every idea should be debated and every issue should get a vote. From better mental health treatment, more secure schools, stronger background checks, banning assault weapons, the size of magazines or clips, and other issues, these ideas should get a vote. There are strong feelings and deep disagreements about some of these measures, but every one of these measures deserves a vote, a yes or a no--no hiding, no running from an issue that has captivated America.

There is no better place than in the Senate to begin a national conversation about such critical issues, even if they are divisive issues. We shouldn't stifle debate, run from tough issues or avoid difficult choices. This body--the world's greatest deliberative body-- has a proud tradition of such robust and constructive debate.

I am deeply troubled a number of my Republican colleagues went so far as to send me a letter saying: We will agree to nothing. There will be no debate. There will be nothing. We want the Senate to do zero on anything dealing with stricter gun measures. They don't even want to let us vote.

This flies in the face of a Senate tradition of spirited discussion that began in the first days of this institution. There is simply no reason for this blatant obstruction except for the fear of considering antiviolence proposals in full view. Yet many Senate Republicans seem afraid to even engage in this debate--to have amendments to strengthen the legislation or, if they want, to offer amendments to weaken what the law is today.

In short, let's have a debate on violence in America. I repeat: Many Senate Republicans seem afraid to even engage in this debate. Shame on them.

The least Republicans owe the parents of these 20 little babies who were murdered at Sandy Hook is a thoughtful debate about whether stronger laws could have saved their little girls and boys. The least Republicans owe them is a vote.

The least Republicans owe the families and friends of those gunned down at a movie theater in Colorado and a Sikh temple in Wisconsin and a shopping mall in Oregon and every day on the streets of American cities is a meaningful conversation about how to change America's culture of violence. The least Republicans owe America is a vote.

The legislation on the floor would keep guns out of the hands of convicted criminals and safeguard the most vulnerable Americans--our children.

This proposal is supported by 9 out of 10 Americans. Background checks, 9 out of 10--90 percent of Americans--believe we should do something, and I get a letter from a group of Republicans saying: Don't touch it. We don't want anything to do with it.

It flies in the face of what 90 percent of Americans want. If Republicans disagree with the measure, let them vote against it. One of my Democratic colleagues said: Here are some of the things I want to vote against. Good. They are free to vote against it. If they don't like the laws that now exist in America, offer an amendment to make it weaker or stronger, depending on how they look at it. They shouldn't shut down debate or prevent us from voting on many thoughtful proposals to curb violence.

On issue after issue, Republicans have called for a return to so- called regular order. They come to the Senate floor saying let's return to regular order. They ask for the opportunity to offer amendments. They have called for free and open debate in the Senate. Those who have been yelling the most for this free and open debate are the people who sent me a letter saying: We are going to filibuster everything relating to guns. Talk about speaking out of both sides of their mouth. This is the poster child of that.

When they encounter an issue they are afraid to debate in full public view, they want to thwart debate altogether. They have threatened to filibuster this legislation which was passed out of committee under regular order. That is what they said they wanted. They have threatened to block debate on this measure, to which they are able to offer amendments.

I am happy to see a few reasonable Republicans who have stated publicly they are willing to engage in an important conversation on this issue. They have urged their more extreme colleagues not to resort to the same tired tactics of obstruction. But it will take more than 1 or 2 or 3 reasonable Republicans to ensure the families of 30,000 Americans killed by guns each year get the respectful debate they deserve.

Nominations

Unfortunately, the type of Republican obstruction that could prevent the Senate from debating and voting on antiviolence legislation is nothing new. For the last few years, Republicans have practically ground the work of the Senate to a halt. Republicans have filibustered countless job creation measures. Since President Obama took office, Republicans have systematically slow-walked or blocked scores and scores of judicial executive branch nominations, including even--for the first time in the history of our country--the nomination of the Secretary of Defense who, by the way is a former Republican Senator. Pending nominees have waited an average of 1 year for a Senate vote-- almost 1 year, about 280 days.

Republicans have openly filibustered 57 of President Obama's nominees, but they have secretly stopped scores and scores of nominations by secret holds and procedural hurdles. Republicans have jammed executive branch nominees even when they have no objection to the nominee's qualifications, just to eat up valuable floor time.

I am concerned about this dysfunction, but I am not the only one. Virtually every American thinks this is foolish, the way things are going. The Nation is watching the Senate to see whether we will ever function efficiently again. They are watching.

I hope my Republican colleagues will work with Democrats going forward to prove the Senate is not completely broken.

I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 32, S. 649.

Would the Chair announce the business of the day.

Are we now in a period of morning business?

Thank you very much. I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that we are on the budget resolution, that it has been reported.