Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I rise to urge the Senate to confirm the nomination of Sylvia Mathews Burwell to be Director of the Office of Management and Budget. I do so with great pride because Sylvia Burwell is from my home State of West Virginia. I have been dear friends with her family for a long time.

Her parents have been community leaders in Hinton, WV, for over half a century. Her father Dr. William Mathews is a longtime optometrist, and her mother the Honorable Cleo Mathews previously served as the mayor of Hinton, as well as in a number of other public service positions. I worked with Sylvia for many years as mayor when I was Governor of the State--she was quite competent--including 8 years on the State Board of Education when she served as president of the board of education.

If you want to know Sylvia, you should look at her small hometown of Hinton, WV, and the surrounding Summers County that she grew up in because that is her grounding. It is pure Americana, a one-time railroad boom town, woven into the mountains of Appalachia. The downtown historic district, 200 buildings, including churches, storefronts, and private residences, is an architectural gem of American Gothic, Classical, Victorian and Greek Revival styles. It is a movie just waiting to happen.

Hinton is the ideal example of smalltown West Virginia and probably smalltown America. It only has 2,600 residents. That is a pretty large town for West Virginia and probably North Dakota. It is nestled into a lush green valley on the banks of the New River, surrounded by the towering, majestic mountains and forests of Summers County, one of the most beautiful counties in West Virginia.

New River is one of the oldest rivers in the world. It flows south to north, which may be due to the fact that it was formed long before the Appalachian Mountains.

This is the special place Sylvia Mathews Burwell calls home, a showcase for the best of West Virginia and America, the beauty, the outdoors, and the people are warm and welcoming. Sylvia is humble, hardworking, has spent most of her life helping hard-working families everywhere achieve the American dream her Greek immigrant grandparents found in this country.

She went off to Harvard, was a Rhodes Scholar, and has traveled the world over. But she has never lost touch with her West Virginia roots and the ties that bind us together. No matter where she is, 1 day each week like clockwork, Sylvia is on the phone with the two best friends she made in the first grade in Hinton. Think about it. That is who we are. That is the heart and soul of West Virginia, friends and family.

But make no mistake, I am supporting Sylvia's nomination not because she is from West Virginia, which makes it all that much sweeter, but because she embodies the best of our State and our country. In West Virginia, we judge people by their deeds as much as their words, and Sylvia has already accomplished so much in her life, the public service and philanthropy she has been involved with.

Sylvia Mathews Burwell is an exceptional choice to lead the Office of Management and Budget, especially in the aftermath of sequestration, which is what we are going through now, and which so many of our colleagues detailed on the Senate floor this past week. We are still discussing it.

I say that because Sylvia served as the Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget, which now she will become Director of, from 1998 to 2001, which was our last era--think about the last time of fiscal responsibility, when balanced deficit reduction gave us balanced Federal budgets.

The fiscal plan she and Erskine Bowles, whom she worked with, put together, had we followed it to this day and not changed, would have erased our national debt completely by now. Can you believe that. We would have been totally out of debt as a nation if we had followed the plan that was put forward back in 1996, 1997, 1998, and followed through after 2001.

Sylvia was a key part of the Clinton White House team which reached across the aisle, negotiated those balanced budgets with a Republican Congress. If we look closely at the numbers, we can see what an accomplishment it was to fix our finances in the 1990s. Prior to 1993, when Sylvia joined the Clinton administration, the United States had failed to balance its budget for 23 years--23 years.

By 1992, spending had risen to historic highs--I think we all know that story--and revenues had reached near historic lows. We know that one too. That is exactly the dilemma we are in right now, compared to the size of the economy. In 1992, the Federal budget deficit topped out at $290 billion. I think we are close to $17 trillion in debt right now.

By the time Sylvia left the Clinton White House and went to the Office of Management and Budget in 1998 as a Deputy, the wheels were in motion of sustainable balanced budgets for years to come. She put these wheels on. Spending had shrunk drastically and revenues were soaring to historic highs, thanks to a thriving U.S. economy and reasonable tax policy that ensured both corporations and wealthy individuals paid their fair share.

I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 minutes. At

that time, I wish to be able to turn it over to the Senator from Iowa.

In 1998, Sylvia's last year in the White House and the first year at OMB, the Federal budget had a $69.3 billion surplus, the first surplus in a generation. Sylvia has been out of government for the last 12 years. But I am confident she will bring a fresh perspective to the fiscal debate we will be having over the next few years.

After serving in high-profile leadership positions, she has been well balanced, and she has been with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. She has been their top person. I would hope all my colleagues on the Republican side and my colleagues on the Democratic side will look at Sylvia as part of America, part of this great country, a product of who we are. She will do a great job because she has a track record of already doing it. With that, I would encourage all my colleagues to please vote in support of Sylvia Mathews Burwell.

I have no more than 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak up to 15 minutes.

I rise today to speak in support of the Marketplace Fairness Act. I was a cosponsor of this important legislation in the 112th Congress and I am proud to be a cosponsor in the 113th Congress, because this is truly a matter of fairness. The Marketplace Fairness Act will allow local Main Street--we call them brick and mortar, but they are basically businesses, little stores with real people in them, working hard to make a real living. It will provide much-needed financial relief to State budgets that have been cut to the bone in recent years and are facing even more cuts in Federal assistance thanks to what we were just discussing here, the disastrous sequestration with the Draconian cuts.

This bill is not a Washington handout to businesses. It is not a special treatment. It is not a new tax. It is leveling the playing field. It is a leveling of the playing field. Every day we do not act to pass the bill is another day we risk another small business closing its doors--not only in West Virginia but all across this country.

There is always a lot of talk in Washington about helping small businesses, and rightly so, because small businesses, as you know in your State, account for more than 60 percent of all the private sector jobs. It is the small businesses, not the large businesses.

The Marketplace Fairness Act is a chance to do more than just talk about it for once. We have a chance to do something to show we care about small businesses. It levels the playing field and gives our Main Street businesses a fighting chance competing with Internet vendors that are not required to collect sales tax.

Let me give an example in a small rural State such as West Virginia. We are expanding, working very hard on the Internet, broadband high speed, trying to get to every little holler, up and down every nook and cranny. We are trying to help the people, and that is great. But it really puts more pressure on small businesses, because now, with the convenience, people will not travel. They may not go to the store. But if they want the service and they know the price is the same, there is no unfair advantage, there is a level playing field, the small businesses still have a chance. That is all we are asking for.

Business owners in West Virginia tell me all the time how unfair it is to watch their online competitors offer low prices on the exact same products. We have heard a lot of talk about that today. That is called showrooming and that is basically people shopping. They used to go shopping in the old days. They would go to one store and compare and then go to another store and compare and they worked back and forth and figured out where they had the best deal or where they thought they had the best deal with the best service. That does not happen on line.

First of all, in my State they have a 6-percent advantage because our State tax is 6 percent in all our counties, so that is a 6-percent advantage from the get-go, and in these hard economic times price is the driving force.

That is why this bill has so much bipartisan support: 74 votes. Mr. President, you have been here a short period of time, but you are very observant. You know that. You have watched and seen very few times that we have gotten that type of broad bipartisan support on anything, and that is what is refreshing to see. With all of my

friends who come from States that do not have the taxes, and friends on both sides--my own colleagues on the Democratic side and Republican side--what I understand, and what I know will happen, is first of all they do not collect the tax of in-State residents. If they buy it on the Internet, they will not collect that tax because they do not have a sales tax. If they say it is unfair because they are collecting it for me in my State, even though someone in West Virginia might buy from a State that doesn't have a sales tax but they have an Internet business, that is not going to cause undue pressure, I don't believe, or unfair competition in any way, shape, or form. They still need to use all the services in my State while selling their product in a State where they don't have a sales tax. They are going to use the roads to deliver that product to the customer in my State, they are going to use the people who have been educated through the school system in my State, and all I am asking for is the fair share: the fairness--we charge our own customers and our own businesses collect for us in our State--for those who are using my State as their business to do the same. I don't think that is unfair. I really don't. I think the majority of businesses don't think that is unfair, and a majority of Americans don't think that is unfair.

This is not a complicated piece of legislation. It is only 11 pages. It is pretty short compared to most of the bills we see around here. Basically, it just does what we said: It allows the States to collect sales tax on out-of-State sales, provided these States streamline their tax codes.

There are some restrictions that come with this. They must either voluntarily adopt the measures in the streamlined sales and use tax law, which 24 States have already done, including my little State of West Virginia--do my colleagues know we were the No. 3 State in the Nation to join in this fairness movement many years ago. And when I was Governor, we worked very hard to work with the other States, and we built up to 24 States that basically were acceptable toward tax code fairness. That is really what it is about. Or a State can meet five mandates. There are five mandates they can meet. They can notify retailers of rate changes, they can create a single organization for collecting sales tax, they can establish a uniform tax base, or they can use destination sourcing for sales tax rates and provide free software and hold harmless protection for retailers.

To simplify, what that means is some States might have different tax codes in different counties. Some counties have different taxes they add on to their State tax or they have a municipal tax, so they are saying there will be 9,600 different tax codes, which is almost impossible. For anyone to participate in this piece of legislation, they have to make a decision on one of those five criteria I just mentioned. That brings the tax code down to 46. It simplifies it. So that argument doesn't hold either, the complication of 9,600 jurisdictions I heard being used by my good friend from New Hampshire.

The beauty is if a State without a sales tax doesn't want to participate, they don't have to. That is the beauty of it. They don't have to. They don't have to participate. They don't have to collect the sales tax from their people, as I said earlier, so they have that option. I know all the arguments against the legislation, but, again, I will say they are just wrong.

Some critics say this is a tax increase. That is wrong. If I am paying 6 percent in West Virginia when I go to a store in Fairmont, Charleston, Huntington, Martinsburg, Greenbrier, or Lewisburg--wherever I go it is the same, 6 percent. The only thing we are saying is if a consumer buys on the Internet, the consumer will be charged the same 6 percent. It is not an increase. It is the same.

I think that makes it pretty simple also. It really does give our little stores, owned by the people who basically are the same people to whom we go to participate, give donations and contributions to the Little League--how many times do we see an Internet company giving to the Little League in our hometown or contributing to the chamber of commerce in our hometown, giving to any of the different fund drives there might be, such as the volunteer fire department. What we are saying is we have to do everything we can to keep them alive and healthy.

Some critics say online services don't use the local services that are paid for by the sales taxes, and they should be required to declare the sales taxes. That is wrong also, and I think we just talked about that. They also say whatever product a customer orders online--let's say it is a book from Amazon or shoes from Macy's or towels from Target--if it was delivered, it still has to get to the customer. It still has to use the infrastructure the State is responsible to invest into, and that is our sales tax.

Sales taxes, in all States that collect them, go into general revenue. General revenue supports a cadre of things--anything we can imagine--from schools to roads to programs people need to supporting senior citizens. The taxes support every aspect of life in the State.

When we look at the whole overall bill, including the fact that the little stores and online retailers sell identical products and use the same infrastructure to deliver those products, and collecting taxes owed on a purchase at the point of sale, whether they are relying on consumers to pay that tax voluntarily, as some critics have proposed, would mean $23 billion that is going uncollected. That is just the fairness we are adding to it. Just the fairness. But $23 billion is needed revenue in States that are having difficult times.

We have heard a lot of people give testimony here today that if their little State gets the amount of money it would get by having a fair, level playing field in their taxes, they could reduce their taxes. Well, that is a good opportunity in these difficult times. If West Virginia could have collected sales tax on out-of-State sales during fiscal year 2012 only--not new taxes, just those already owed to the State--if we took the sales done over the Internet, we could have put $103 million more in our State's budget--$103 million more. Our budget is around $4 billion. That is a good chunk of money.

We could have used it to do a couple of things. Let me give an example of what we could have done. With that extra money from Internet sales, we could have built 412 miles of new roads--412 miles. We could hire 2,000 schoolteachers with that money we didn't receive. We could have built 5 high schools. We could have built 7 middle schools or 10 new elementary schools.

Now, we talk about jobs. We talk about infrastructure. We talk about basically investing back into the State, that is money we weren't able to do that with, and that would have helped us.

When we talk about the e-commerce growth, if we look at the growth of business being done online versus business being done in retail stores, we will see quite a disparity, and it is going to continue to grow and put more pressure on businesses. We think this is not going to interfere with the Internet sales, and the reason we say that is because of our busy lifestyles. If that is the way a person wants to shop, that is fine. But they just would not be able to say, well, I can save money because I don't have to pay the sales tax. It might make somebody think they might go down to John's Hardware Store. I know them, and they do a heck of a job. They have a fighting chance now. I want to stay in my local community. They have a fighting chance now.

Trust me, we would not put any Internet businesses out of business. That will not happen. In 2000, the U.S. economy supported $27 billion in e-commerce, which constituted only 9 percent of all retail sales. Over the next 12 years, e-commerce grew tenfold, totaling $224 billion, which is equal to 7 percent of all retail sales: Seven percent now of all retail sales, 10 years ago, 1 percent. One market analysis projects that online retail sales in the United States will grow by 10 percent annually through 2017--10 percent annually. So when we look at that, from $224 billion in 2012, that will be over $370 billion in the next 4 years.

I will just told my colleagues in 2012 what our little State lost and what we could have done with it. Think of all the missed opportunities we are going to have not just in my State but in States all over the Nation.

So just look at how the Internet use has soared in the United States since

2000. Some 240 million Americans are online today compared to half that amount when the century began. So a little over 10 years ago we only had about 120 million. We are going to have full integration of our Internet, which is good. I think it is good. I just want to make sure it is fair, that is all, just fair.

As broadband speeds grow, home and mobile Internet mobile users will spend more time online, and that means more time online shopping. That is fine too. They just will not be able to say: I am going to save 6 percent. They can't say that upfront. That means they are going to shop around a little bit more, and that means we have a chance. If I have a little store in Farmington, WV, where I came from, I have a chance to survive. It gives me a chance. I don't start out in the hole. I don't start out with my hands in my pocket and 6 percent behind to begin with.

Google researchers have found that already 97 percent of Americans look for local products online. So, clearly, the businesses back home are at a huge disadvantage in competing with online retailers if tax requirements are unequal. This makes sense. State governments are losing billions of dollars in uncollected sales taxes that could build the infrastructure we all need.

I have heard from so many businesses back home in West Virginia, and I can tell my colleagues there is overwhelming support for this legislation, and there has been from day one, since we became one of the first States to enter into this streamlined compact. That was in 2003. It started with three States, up to 24 States now, and we have a pathway for all the States to have equalization.

``I own a small business that encourages local people to support local West Virginal artists.'' This is what a lady who wrote to me said. She is a small business owner. Her name is Parween Mascari. She says:

I own a small business that encourages people to support

local West Virginia artists. Because we sell from a physical

storefront, we must collect and remit sales tax from our

customers. Online merchants do not currently have to collect

or remit a comparable tax on sales they make online. That is

not only fundamentally unfair, but seriously impairs our

ability to be competitive in the market when we have to

charge our customers a tax that they don't have to pay when

they shop online.

I wish to commend Senator Durbin and Senator Enzi and my senior Senator Rockefeller for taking leadership on this important issue and for introducing the Marketplace Fairness Act. I am a proud cosponsor of it because I believe it is fair and good for America. I believe this legislation restores fairness and balance to our tax system and strengthens our businesses and revitalizes our downtowns. It creates jobs and helps States struggling to provide the services their citizens expect.

This measure has broad support in both parties, as we have seen by the votes we have already taken. It is backed not only by mom-and-pop stores and Main Street merchants, but also by giant online retailers such as Amazon. I urge Senators to act without any further delay.

I thank my colleagues and, again, I say this is a matter of fairness. It is a matter that I think restores the fairness in American retail.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 45 minutes.

Madam President, first of all, I wish to thank all of my colleagues because I know it has been a difficult time and there are an awful lot of people who have different comments on this legislation. They have different feelings about it. There are an awful lot of facts and nonfacts, truths and untruths that have been out there, and I wish to set a few of those things straight.

I think the Presiding Officer knows I am a proud gun owner. I come from a tradition in West Virginia, the same as the Presiding Officer from North Dakota. I am an A-rated lifetime, card-carrying member of the National Rifle Association. I agree wholeheartedly with the mission of the NRA, which is to defend the Second Amendment rights of law- abiding, gun-owning

American citizens such as the Presiding Officer and myself, to promote firearms and hunting safety. As a matter of fact, as Governor, I promoted the Eddie Eagle Program in West Virginia along with our friends. The NRA's mission includes promoting marksmanship and educating the general public about firearms.

I carry my card with me. I have had this for quite some time. It is a lifetime membership. Ever since I became a member, I have read all the magazines, as have most of us when we get them, and I have gotten all the special notices about when there was something of concern. I have always read their material, and I have said, Oh, that is great; I am glad someone is saying this and speaking out.

I was surprised when the latest alerts from the NRA were filled with so much misinformation about the firearms background check legislation that Senator Toomey and I are trying to get in front of the Senate to be passed. They are telling their members that our legislation would-- and I quote--I want to quote this--``criminalize the private transfer of firearms by honest citizens, requiring lifelong friends, neighbors and some family members to get Federal Government permission to exercise a fundamental right or face prosecution.''

Where I come from in West Virginia--I don't know how to put the words any plainer than this--that is a lie. That is simply a lie. Anybody who can read knows that is not factual. There is nothing in this bill-- there is not a universal background check. There is nothing in this bill that says if a person is living in a neighborhood and they want to sell a neighbor their gun, they can't do it. No background checks are required. If a person comes from a State with the gun traditions we have in our State, the gun culture, that person can give it to their son, their grandson, any of their family members, and no background check is needed. Why they would say the private transfer of firearms by honest citizens--this bill protects honest gun-loving, law-abiding citizens more than any piece of legislation we have had in the last two to three decades, and I think people who have read the bill know that.

I remember when the NRA used to feel a lot differently about background checks and it wasn't all that long ago. Back in 1999, their executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, testified before Congress that background checks were reasonable. In fact, he said it over and over and over. Let me quote Mr. LaPierre: ``We think it's reasonable to provide for instant checks at gun shows just like at gun stores and pawnshops.''

Because the law says if a person goes to a gun store now that is a licensed dealer, a person has to do the background check, and by law they have to keep the record, and by law they cannot use that as a registration. They cannot, by law. In our bill, we even make sure any type of information for registration cannot be used. We said if a person tries to do it--if a government agency or a person who works for the government tries to use any of these records, it is a felony with 15 years of imprisonment. That is how much this bill protects my rights as a law-abiding gun owner.

Mr. LaPierre: ``We think it's reasonable to provide mandatory instant criminal background checks for every gun sold at a gun show.'' We have talked about this before. The law today says that if I go to a gun show and there is a licensed dealer, that dealer still has to do a background check on me and keep the proper record. But I can go to a table or go outside in the parking lot and nothing is required of me-- nothing. All we are doing is taking current law and making it uniform so everybody plays by the same set of rules. We think it helps tremendously.

We talked about criminals and people who have been adjudicated through a court of having mental illness and it has been determined they are incompetent. We don't think those people should be able to buy a gun at a gun show or online or at a gun store. We believe the law- abiding gun owners whom I know in West Virginia--and I am sure the Presiding Officer knows in North Dakota--would not sell their gun, even though they don't have to go through a background check, to someone they know is mentally insane or has a criminal intent. That is not how we transfer or sell our guns in West Virginia.

I will tell my colleagues this. I have talked to all my gun owners all over my State, and I am so proud of them. They have heard all of this hogwash out there and all the lies from people trying to misrepresent. When I talked to them, over 87 of them said, I agree with you; you are right. They have read the bill.

This is tough, I understand, but all I am asking is for people to take the time to read it and make sure they know what is being proposed.

I would be OK if the NRA just said, Listen, we have tried the background checks and guess what. The Federal Government didn't do its job the way it was supposed to. They are right. The Federal Government did not clamp down. They did not require the States to turn in all of their records and impose any type of a penalty.

Guess what. In our bill, we fix that. I have told people before, I have been in the legislative process for quite some time. I have been Governor of my State and I have been involved in so many different aspects of government. I have never seen a perfect bill. I really have not. I have never had a perfect bill that I have ever voted on that did not have to be worked on.

So I would say to my friends--whether it be the NRA or any gun organization--if you do not like the thing you supported 10 years ago, then work with me and let's fix it. If you believe they did not turn all their records in, I have got penalties. Also we have incentives for the States to do their job. We will fix that.

If you are saying there have been some of these agents who have been a little bit rogue, and they wanted to use these records, and you still, in your mind, believe they are going to take your records, we have said, now if they do it, it is a felony with 15 years imprisonment.

We are fixing everything you have told me. If you are saying as a law-abiding gun owner, I am looked upon as if something is wrong with me: Why would I want to own a gun? Why would I have a gun?

There are three types of gun ownership in America. You have a sportsman who likes to hunt, shoot, enjoy the family outings. You have one who buys it for the defense of themselves and their family. And you have a pure constitutionalist. I do not relate to this group here: that I am afraid my government is going to come after me and I have to defend myself against the U.S. Government or the military. I am not fearing that, so I am not in that category. I am in these two categories which most Americans are: either you are a sportsman or you want to defend your family and yourself and your property.

This bill protects that right more than any bill we have ever had before us. It will do it more than it has ever been done in the last two to three decades. I can stand at any crowd--and I have been going in front of some of the most ardent gun-support crowds--I have given them the bill and let them read the bill and I have taken every question they have asked me--every question. At the end, you might have one or two who say: I am sorry, I think you are overreaching. I think that basically I should have the right to buy, sell, do anything I want with a gun. This might be the same person who believes there should be no laws for anything, that you should not have to have a driver's license to drive a car, that you should not have to pay income taxes, that you should not have to abide by any laws we have on the books. I respectfully disagree, but I respect their position. That is a very small minority but, boy, can they talk. They are very loud, and I understand.

So the only thing I am saying is, if some of the friends I have known forever over at the NRA--if somebody made a mistake when they put this information out, please correct it because, I can tell you, in Washington or in West Virginia or as a human being, the only thing you have is your word and your credibility, and make sure when you tell someone something, you tell them the facts and the truth.

If that is your friend and it is someone you want to represent, honestly, say: Let me tell you both sides. You make your decision. I am going to defend you. I am an unconditional friend.

I am your friend no matter what, through thick or thin. Now we go on to the next thing, if you will, when things do not work out. I understand that. But I am just saying: Tell me everything. Tell me what I can expect of someone who might not agree with me and tell me what I can expect of the people who will agree with me. I can handle that.

I will tell my friends, if you lose your credibility in Washington, you have lost everything. I used to get all the magazines I received, all the special notices they wanted me to be alerted to. I start questioning, if you did not represent it accurately, how could I make an honest decision on how I should feel? That is all.

Madam President, I do not need to tell you. You know how relationships are built and how they are kept, and that is the most important thing here in this body. I say that with the utmost respect for everybody in this body. I understand some of our colleagues believe that supporting this piece of legislation is risky politics. I think there is a time in our life, a defining time in public service, a time when you have the ability to stand when you know the facts are on your side and walk into the lion's den and look that lion in the eye and tell that lion: Listen, not today; not today.

Even if politics are risky, remember the words of Andrew Jackson.

The brave man inattentive to his duty is worth little more

to his country than the coward who deserts in the hour of

danger.

I am not saying any of that. Everybody has their purpose and reason. This piece of legislation, the longer people read it, the more they study it, the more it sells itself.

My good friend Jon Tester from Montana spoke right on this floor 2 days ago. I said: Jon, if you want to come down and say something, please do. I did not know what Jon was going to say. But I did encourage Jon: Please read it. Well, flying to Montana and back, you have a little bit of time to read, and Jon used that time to read the bill, frontwards and backwards. He spoke about the things in the bill it did and the things it did not do. That is what we have been talking about: that 90 percent of Americans--83 percent of West Virginians-- support a criminal background check or a mental background check. They do not support infringing on an individual's right. If you are out in parts of my State--my beautiful State of West Virginia--where you know everybody, you know who is responsible or not, you know a family member you want to give a gun to. We know that. We did not infringe on that.

But they also believe that on the Internet you might never know somebody and that some background check should be required. If you read the New York Times today, you will see an article there that is very alarming and alerting. It allows us to see into the world of Internet transfers of guns--people who are known felons, people who are making a living selling guns on the Internet because no one is checking anything. This bill would prevent that from happening.

Old Hickory also said:

One man with courage makes a majority.

One person, because, Madam President, you and the other ladies in this body have given us so much strength. You really do. You bring balance. As it is said in some of the movies, you complete us. You complete us as a body. You really do. I appreciate so much the grounding and the way you ground us, and I thank you for that.

As shown on this chart, this is an al-Qaida member too, and I want to speak about this. I was watching ``Morning Joe'' one morning, and they showed a clip. They showed a clip of this gentleman, who is an American, an al-Qaida terrorist who is an American. As you see there, if you ever click on this--this is very easy to pull up on your video-- our gun laws are so outdated and so out of whack that even this person, who wants to do damage and harm to every American--even this person-- has figured out how to exploit them, to arm themselves and people like him in our country. If you have not, you need to see this. His name is Adam Gadahn--Adam Gadahn is his name--telling sympathizers--telling sympathizers of al-Qaida--how to get their hands on guns in America with almost no questions asked--almost no questions. He says:

America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable

firearms. You can go down to a gun show at the local

convention center and come away with a fully automatic

assault rifle, without a background check and, most likely,

without having to show an identification card.

And then he finishes:

So what are you waiting for?

``So what are you waiting for?'' Those are his words. Well, I am not waiting. I am not waiting for him to get his hands on the guns. If you are a law-abiding American citizen, who can pass a background check, God bless you. I will fight to the nth degree to defend your Second Amendment rights. But if you are this guy, with the purpose this guy has for America and Americans, absolutely not. That is what we are asking. Our legislation shuts him down. It stops him cold in his tracks.

If al-Qaida's enthusiasm for gun show sales is not chilling enough, you have to read today's New York Times article about how easy it is for criminals to buy and sell guns on the Internet. Not only is it quick and easy, it is anonymous. You do not have any idea who you are dealing with. One of the people in the article describes these Internet sales as a ``gun show that never ends''--``a gun show that never ends''--and I would add: never closes because the Internet is 24/7.

The Internet is a vast marketplace for guns. In 2000, the Department of Justice estimated that 80 online firearm auction sites and approximately 4,000 other sites offered guns for sale.

That was more than a dozen years ago, and we all know how the Internet has expanded since then. The online market may now exceed gun shows in terms of sales volume. We all know how we are using our technology more and more every day for our personal lives and how we depend on it. For example, the National Shooting Sports Foundation surveyed owners of modern sporting rifles in 2010 and found that 10 percent of them--10 percent of all rifles sold--had purchased their firearms at gun shows whereas 25 percent had purchased them online--25 percent.

Believe me, I understand the political stakes for my colleagues--and I sympathize; I have been there; I understand--who come from States such as West Virginia. And no State has a higher regard for the Second Amendment right to bear arms than my State. In fact, on the Great Seal of the State of West Virginia, the preamble is: ``Montani semper liberi.'' In Latin that means: ``Mountaineers Are Always Free.'' So you know how we feel. We are one of the few States that became a State during the Civil War. We broke away from Virginia at that time.

But West Virginians are also guided by a little common sense. I have said this. In West Virginia we know what nonsense is, we know what common sense is, and now we know what gun sense is. That is all we are asking for.

I am proud of all of my West Virginians. When they read our legislation, they understand that all we are doing is using common sense to protect the safety of the public, especially our kids and at the same time protect the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

John Adams once said:

Facts are stubborn things.

``Facts are stubborn things.'' It is hard. It is hard. And I am pretty stubborn myself, as I know, Madam President, you are, and all of our colleagues. If we were not, we would not be here.

So I am going to go through our legislation again and tell you what is the myth out there and what is the fact about our legislation.

Let's start with the myth that the NRA is repeating to their members. Let's start with that.

Here is the myth: This legislation will require background checks when a gun owner sells, loans, or gives a firearm to a relative, neighbor, or friend. It is going to prohibit that from happening. That is what they are saying this legislation does.

Here is the fact: Current law exempts such transfers from background checks, and our bill does nothing to change that--nothing to change that.

You can loan your hunting rifle to your buddy without any new restrictions or requirements or you can give or sell a gun to your brother or your sister, your cousin, your uncle, your coworker without a background check. You can post a gun for sale on the cork bulletin board at your workplace or on your church bulletin board without a background check.

We are not going to do anything to turn law-abiding gun owners into criminals, which is what they want you to believe any legislation and our legislation--mine and Senator Toomey's and Senators Kirk's and Schumer's--would do. It does not do that.

There is another myth: Nothing in this legislation would have prevented or will prevent any tragic mass shootings in the future.

Madam President, I know you were visited by the families, as most of our colleagues were, from Newtown--a most difficult time. Not one of them ever asked us to take the guns away. Not one of those families ever asked us to repeal the Second Amendment. They never infringed on any of that. And most of them to a ``T'' said: I know this would not have saved my baby. I know this law today that you are working on would not have saved my baby. They know that. They said: Maybe we can save somebody else's baby. That is all.

But let me tell you, this bill has a component called the Commission on Mass Violence because, as you go around and you talk to the children throughout the schools of your State, respectfully--I have been all over West Virginia--this generation has been desensitized to the violence that you and I grew up being scared to death of.

They have been desensitized. They can get on a video game and see things we can never imagine. This Commission on Mass Violence is put together by people of expertise who can tell us about guns. When a person says: Oh, I think that gun ought to be banned, wait a minute. That is my hunting rifle. It might look a little different, but it does not shoot any different. You might not know about it, so do not ban that gun until you know. So this Commission basically puts the expertise of guns on gun people who can explain it to us and then make an informed decision. This piece of legislation--the Commission on Mass Violence--puts together people with expertise in mental illness.

I go to grade schools, I go to the kindergartens since this happened at Newtown. Do you know what they tell me? They say: Senator, I can identify a child who has problems. I can identify a child who comes from a home with problems. They have mental challenges. They need help. I have nowhere to go. I have nowhere to send them. They have no insurance. They have no type of help or support.

We can fix that. But you have to listen to the people who understand mental illness.

Then, on top of that--this is a sad scenario because if we would have had the Commission on Mass Violence, and that Commission would have come back, and part of that Commission says, on school safety--as a Governor, and I know as an official in the Presiding Officer's State, we built a lot of schools, we modeled a lot of schools. Not one time did an architect ever come to me and say: Governor, we have to put bulletproof glass on all first floors of our schools. Bulletproof glass.

Now, think about this. Adam Lanza shot out the front door and stuck his arm through and opened the door to get into that school. It was locked down. Most of the schools now have looks on them. Most of the classrooms have locks. If you can shoot the glass out and stick your arm into the door, what good is it?

We would have never thought about that. If we could have done that, maybe, just maybe, we could have prevented this horrible tragedy. I do not know. But the families are not asking us to look back, they are just asking to look forward. They are saying there could be another child, that there could be another massacre; can we stop it?

I do not say this bill is a panacea. But if I can stop one crazy person, if I can stop one criminal who has nothing but hatred and harm to inflict on other people, if I can do that, I have done my job, I think I have, and I can go home.

As one of the Newtown parents, Francine Wheeler, said: Please help us do something before our tragedy becomes your tragedy. This is so compelling. It really is. Our bill will ensure that the States get their records up to speed. The NRA was correct. They said: Hey, you have not done your job. I agree with them. We did not. But we are going to.

I have often said: You can either throw the baby out with the bathwater or you can change the water. I intend to make a change. That is all I am asking.

Our bill is going to prevent felons--it is going to prevent this guy and people like this guy from just going to the gun shows like a supermarket and getting whatever they want to get to do harm to us. It will not stop them all. If we can slow them down, we might have saved an American's life.

A national registry. I have talked about this so many times. That cannot happen. Section 122 of this bill:

Prohibition of a National Gun Registry. Section 923 of

Title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding from our

bill: The Attorney General may not consolidate or centralize

the records of the acquisition or disposition of firearms, or

any portion thereof, maintained by a person with a valid

current license under this chapter; an unlicensed transferor

under this section; possession of ownership of firearm,

maintained by any medical or health insurance entity.

It goes on and on.

All I have asked for is for everyone to please read the bill. I do not know what the outcome will be. I know we are close. I know it is a tough decision. I know that. I feel good. I believe I am here for this purpose. I believe that and I am willing to walk anywhere that would allow me to speak the facts.

As I said, I have never seen a perfect bill. I am sure we can even improve on this legislation. But I will say, everybody was asked for input. No matter what side of the fence people were on on the gun issue, they were asked for input. Whether it came from an organization representing millions of people, I wanted their input. Whether it came from a person who wanted to ban everything, I wanted their input. Then they were able to come together and say: If I am a law-abiding citizen, then let me exercise my rights as a law-abiding citizen.

The Second Amendment is very cherished by us and very sacred in West Virginia as it is in North Dakota and everywhere else. We made sure the culture we grew up with was protected and enhanced. We made sure of that.

I can go to any group in America and show them. When they see the facts, they will agree. I have been there. I know it happens.

So I finally will say: If you are a law-abiding citizen, and you are a law-abiding gun owner, you want to be treated and looked upon as a respected law-abiding citizen and gun owner, this bill does it for you. If you believe we should be able to treat our veterans better than we have because veterans today, if they are just evaluated by a VA court, if you will, and determined that--that is just not right. They can be put on the NICS list immediately. We have a 30-day period that every veteran coming out who might have some challenges--and God only knows, those men and women have sacrificed so much, what it has done to their lives. We owe them everything. We owe them the right to be able to live as a law-abiding citizen and to get back into the mainstream of America without having to fight for rights.

This bill does that for veterans. This bill does that. We notify 150,000 veterans--we notify 150,000 veterans who might be on the NICS and do not even know they are on it and give them that 30-day repeal period. We do that in this bill.

So if you want to really honor a veteran, if you want to thank them for their services and make sure they are treated with the utmost respect, this bill does that. If you are a criminal, if you have been deemed to be mentally incompetent through a court, you are probably not going to like the bill. I am the first to tell you that. I am sorry. You are not going to like it. I am not going to make any excuses. I do not think you want guns for the right reasons anyway. So I hope I can keep them from you. That is what I would say. I hope I can keep them from you.

I hope you cannot go down with an al-Qaida person over here who is an American terrorist, go with him and buy a gun. I hope you cannot do it at a gun show. I hope you cannot get on the Internet, where they do not know who you are and what you look like or what your intentions are, and buy a gun.

I would like to maybe find out if I can stop you. So I plead guilty to that. If that is what it is, I would. But I am proud of the work we have done. I am proud of all of the Senators. I know all Senators have to make a decision. I respect that.

I do not think ever in our lives has a bill come together with so many pieces of it and so much involvement and input, that took into consideration law-abiding gun owners like myself and the Presiding Officer and so many of us in this body, and respected that and enforced it; and also the respect of our veterans; we fixed that; also that the government hasn't done its job but could do a better job, and may could do it; and the ability to keep a person who should not have a gun strictly at a commercial transaction.

I do not know of any bill that we have had before or that we might have again that will do it all.

With that, I would say that it has been a pleasure to work with all of my Senators. They have worked hard. I know it is not going to go away. Whatever happens today will happen. I believe we have done a good job. I just ask my colleagues to consider this before we vote sometime this afternoon and make sure they feel good and comfortable and can go home and defend their position. That is all. Everybody has to do that. We have to respect that. I do.

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Would the good Senator from Alabama yield?

Mr. President, I respect the Senator's views. He is a true friend. But on the bill Senator Toomey and I have been working on, if I could point out and ask the Senator's concerns and consideration about that, if he would, especially relating to the Second Amendment. I am a defender, I think Senator Toomey is, as is the Senator, a defender of the Second Amendment.

In our amendment we basically strengthen and enforce and promote it. Here is what we have: We allow dealers to sell guns at gun shows in different States, which they can't do now. We allow Active-Duty soldiers to buy guns in their home States, which they can't do now. We fix a legal discrepancy that will allow people in transit across the State to carry an unloaded and locked weapon. And we explicitly state the bill does not expand the authority of the ATF. Plus we make it a penalty by a felony and 15 years imprisonment by registration.

Absolutely.

I respect the Senator's position on this, and I thank him.

Mr. President, would the Senator from South Carolina yield for just 1 second?

I appreciate so much the Senator's sincere approach.

The only thing I would say is that my and Senator Toomey's approach and what we are doing is not a universal background check and would not touch the private sector.

I thank the Senator, and I appreciate it.

Will the Senator yield?

Will the Senator yield for a second? Let me say to Senator McCain, I thank the Senator. I truly do. Because with the Senator's truly busy schedule--and everybody knows in how many directions you are pulled and how you are working--he took time to read it. He took time to see we did not invade anybody's private transactions. He took time to see that basically we had a Commission on Mass Violence that would look at the culture of violence in our country. I can only thank the Senator. For someone with the stature of the Senator in this body, to take the time to go through that bill word by word and know that it does protect our Second Amendment rights, it does the things we try to do in a comprehensive way, I want to say thank you.

Mr. President, will my colleague yield for a question?

I thank my friend from Texas.

I am a little bit confused since it is my and Senator Toomey's amendment, working with Senator Kirk and Senator Schumer. We excluded all private transactions. We did not ever even go close to a private transaction. Ours is only at gun shows, gun stores, and Internet sales, which is controlled now.

On the Internet right now, as I understand the law as we have it, without changing anything--mine or yours--if I buy from you in Texas, and you send me that gun, it has to go by law through a licensed dealer for me to go get a background check to pick it up. We have not changed that, sir. All we do is say if you buy in State or out of State they are treated the same.

Will the Senator yield for one quick moment?

If I may ask the Senator, would he agree that a bill or an amendment should be posted for 48 hours prior to voting?

No, no. I am saying, does the Senator believe we should have 48-hour postings?

If you are committed to protecting Second Amendment rights, as I am, as well as the great citizens of this country, vote for this bill. If you desire for all of our veterans to be treated with dignity and due process when they return from battle, vote for this bill. If you wish to keep criminals and dangerously mentally ill people from purchasing guns at gun shows and on the Internet, you should vote for this bill.

To always remember those 20 babies, beautiful children, the six brave teachers, and to honor the most courageous family members I have ever met in my life, please vote for this bill.

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

Mr. President, last week Senator Toomey, my dear friend from Pennsylvania, and I introduced this important piece of bipartisan legislation with our colleagues Senator Kirk and Senator Schumer. It is called the Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act because that is what it does.

This bill protects the safety of the public and our constitutional right to bear arms. Since we introduced the bill, there has been a lot of misinformation about this legislation. I wish to set the record straight with hard facts about our proposal and what it will do and what it will not do.

I think people need to understand how guns first get into their life, which is through a commercial sale of some sort. We are not talking about creating any new laws; we are making the laws we have uniform.

First of all, today we have on the books FFL--Federal firearms licensed--dealers, and there are approximately 55,000 throughout the United States of America. We all have one close to us in our neighborhood. These are friends of mine and people I know. If a person goes to a licensed dealer today and purchases a gun, they are required to do a criminal background check. The background check is basically to see if that person is able to have a gun. That licensed dealer puts that record of the background check they did, and only he or she, as a licensed dealer, can keep it.

It is against the law to form some type of registry. The paranoia of those who say someone will know where my guns are and people can take them away cannot happen. In our bill, we double down to make sure it doesn't happen by making it a felony with a 15-year imprisonment, so that myth is gone.

The second way to buy a gun is at a gun show. If a person goes to a gun show and that same FFL dealer--if that person went to their store, he or she would go through a background

check. If a person goes to a gun show and buys from a dealer there, he or she would still have to go through a background check under current law. If that person goes to the next table, he or she can buy whatever they want and nobody is checking, and that is what we are going to stop.

Let's say I want to buy a gun through the Internet from Senator Toomey in Pennsylvania and I am in West Virginia. I see he has a gun for sale, and I want to buy that gun. As the law is stated today, as far as buying interstate--from West Virginia to Pennsylvania--Mr. Toomey would have to send that firearm to a licensed dealer in West Virginia, and I would have to have a background check done before I can take possession of that gun.

We are not creating new law. All we are saying is if a person goes to a gun show, there will be a background check for all guns that are sold at the gun show. If a person buys through the Internet, there will be a background check whether it is instate or out of State. This is not a universal background check. This is basically a criminal and mental background check and that criminal and mental background check has to show that person has been found guilty by a court that he or she is a criminal or criminally insane and not allowed to buy a gun and that is all.

So what everybody is hearing with all this talk is just falsehood. If a person is a law-abiding, proud gun owner, such as myself, and likes shooting and going out in the woods with friends and family, we do not infringe in any way, shape or form on individual transfer.

For those transactions which are not commercial transactions--for example, in West Virginia usually your grandfather or uncle or somebody gets you your first gun. There are some people who never bought a gun but have a collection of guns that was handed down to them by their family. Those people will still be able to have that type of transaction. That is not interfered with. A person can sell a gun to their neighbor without any interference. A person can put a note on the bulletin board in their church and say: I have a gun I would like to sell and sell it to a church member.

So if anyone says we are infringing on somebody's right, we are not. As we worked on the bill, we basically looked at the gun culture in America, who we are, how we become who we are, and that is what we took into consideration.

I, for one, as a gun owner and a person who enjoys hunting and shooting and all the things and camaraderie which that brings, I feel sometimes I am looked upon in an objectionable way because I enjoy that. I am a law-abiding citizen and my second amendment right gives me that right. I want to make sure that right is protected. I also have a responsibility to do the right thing, and that is why we are here.

If we are looking for ways to keep our citizens safe from mass violence, then shouldn't we look at the culture of mass violence? I have gone around to the schools in West Virginia and talked to some of the students.

We can talk to our young pages, the brightest and best of what we have. They have probably become desensitized compared to what the Presiding Officer and I would have seen in our generation. If we saw what they do in a movie--and we didn't have the Internet back then, so we didn't have anything to compare to it.

If we are going to talk about banning somebody's weapon, such as a hand-me-down gun, if you will, don't you think we ought to have people with expertise who can tell what the gun does to make sure it isn't just something that might look fancy but doesn't perform any better than a deer rifle? The Commission on Mass Violence is part of this bill. Basically, we are going to have people who have gun expertise, people who have mental illness expertise.

I have gone to the schools and talked to teachers in kindergarten, first grade, and second grade. They are saying: Wait a minute. We have no help. We have identified kids who are challenged mentally or come from a home that is unstable and not getting proper support, and we have nothing to do to help them. As a society, I believe we have a responsibility, so we are going to have that Commission with guns and mental illness expertise.

How about school safety expertise? We had the horrific situation in Newtown. That gentleman got in that school, not because he had a key or because the door was unlocked, he got in that school because he was able to shoot the glass out of the front door and stick his arm in, hit the safety bar and let himself in.

I have been a Governor for 6 years in the State of West Virginia. We built a lot of schools, and we remodeled a lot of schools. Not once did an architect come to me and say: Governor, if we are going to build these schools, we need all these safety devices so a person cannot get into the school.

They told me about the lockdown for each room so a person would need to have a safety code to get into a room. Not one time was I told we should have bulletproof glass on every first floor window. Not one time was that ever brought up to me. We need people who have school safety expertise.

There is video violence. Talk to the children and youth of today. If you have not gotten on the Internet lately and flipped to video violence, you should do it. It will amaze you. What you see will absolutely scare you. They are exposed to horrific things, which I can never imagine from my childhood. Don't you think we should have the people who are the first defenders of the first amendment come and talk to us about how we can change the culture of violence in our society? That is what we are talking about.

I have heard a lot of my colleagues on different talk shows saying they didn't like this or we should be doing that. My good friend Senator Pat Toomey and I are going to go through this bill and explain what it does and what it doesn't do and how we can move the ball forward by keeping society safe, treating law-abiding gun owners with the respect they should have and make sure criminals or the mentally insane who have been found to be so by court cannot buy a gun.

So if someone is a law-abiding gun owner, they are going to like this bill. If someone is a believer in the second amendment right of Americans to bear arms, they are going to like this bill. If someone is a defender of the rights of our military veterans, they are definitely going to like this bill. If someone is looking for ways to keep our citizens safe from mass violence, especially our precious children, they are going to like this bill. For those criminals or persons who have been declared mentally insane by the courts, they are not going to like this bill, and that is exactly what we have tried to do.

I want to go through much of this, but I want to give my friend Senator Pat Toomey an opportunity. I appreciate his input so much. We are sister States, West Virginia and Pennsylvania--especially western Pennsylvania. My family and I grew up in Farmington and Fairmont and northern West Virginia, which is an hour and a half below Pennsylvania. We have the same slangs and sayings. We say ``you'ns'' instead of you all or you. Pat and I understand each other.

I would like Senator Toomey to explain the part that is so near and dear to him as well as to me.

Mr. President, I come from a State where, like most of the rural States in America, there are an awful lot of people who live a solid life. There is a thing back home that we call a person having either common sense or nonsense, and now we think people ought to have a little gun sense. It just makes sense when we think about what we are doing--not infringing on anybody's rights but protecting those rights-- by prohibiting those who shouldn't be able to have a firearm through a commercial transaction from getting one.

My good friend Senator Toomey was just talking about second amendment rights, which all of us hold near and dear if a person comes from a gun culture State such as ours. With that being said--I just talked about common sense and gun sense--one of the largest progun organizations in the country, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, which is strictly for the right to protect the second amendment, has come out in total support of this legislation--total support. Do my colleagues know why? Because they read the bill. That is all we are asking. They read the bill.

A lot of our colleagues have been told certain things. We have a lot of friends in different gun organizations who have been told different things. All Senator Toomey and I ask is to take the time and read the bill.

We started out working this bill from so many different angles. Everybody had a part in this. What we tried to do was find something that would make a difference.

I want my colleagues to think about this: Most of our colleagues have been visited by those unbelievable families from Newtown. I can't even imagine--I really can't, I still cannot--I know the Presiding Officer probably saw the clips when I lost control of my emotions, but I am a grandfather, I am a father, and I can only imagine what these families are going through.

Let me put my colleagues in that state of mind, of losing a child in such a tragic way. A child goes to school. A parent would never expect that child not to come home from school--one of the most sacred places we have--but it happens. How would my colleagues feel? What state of mind would they be in? Let me tell my colleagues their state of mind. To a person, each one of these family members came in and said: We don't want to take anybody's guns away. We don't want to ban any weapons. We don't want to infringe on people's second amendment right.

On top of that, they said: We really know and realize the bill the Senate is working on right now would not have saved our beautiful little children. But what we are asking the Senate to do is maybe save another family, just maybe prevent another family from going through what we went through.

We need to think about that. I wish I could be that strong. I said that if 100 of us in this body had 1 ounce of the courage those family members have, oh, my goodness, what a body we would have. If we weren't worried about all of the outside pressure and maybe getting elected, maybe getting the campaign funds it would take for us to go out and get elected, if we worried about basically keeping a gun out of the hands of a criminal in a commercial transaction--a criminal who has gone through a court system and has been found guilty--or out of the hands of a mentally insane person who has gone through a court and found to be unfit, just maybe we could save one life.

Someone says: Well, why would the Senate take this on? I don't know why else we were sent here other than to try to make a difference. The easiest vote I can make while I am a Senator is no. I can vote no on about everything and be fine. I can go home and people won't say: Why did you do that?

I am glad you voted that way because I don't like that either.

Do my colleagues follow me? ``No'' is the safest vote as a Congressperson or a Senator. I understand that.

It is wonderful, I guess, to have the title of ``Senator.'' It is a great honor to be in this unbelievable body with these truly magnificent people. I want to make a difference. I want to do something, and I think most of my colleagues do as well.

The only thing I am asking of my colleagues who have been told something or have heard something or have gotten pressured phone calls and letters is to read the bill. Just read it. It is only 49 pages. When have we had something that could change the course of our country and it is only 49 pages long? I have seen bills that were 1,000 pages, 500 pages, amendments that were 300 pages. We have an entire bill that is 49 pages. That is all we have asked for. That is all.

My dear friend Senator Toomey and I are going to be on the floor for quite some time. Tomorrow we will probably be joined by our other good friends, Senator Kirk and Senator Schumer. Everybody has come together. Senator Schumer started with a piece for the bill, and I said: My dear friend Chuck, I can't support that.

He said: Can I work with you?

I said: I would love for you to work with me.

My dear friend Mark Kirk from Illinois has been steadfast and rock solid. He has been right there.

This is bipartisan. Bipartisan--is it Democratic and Republican? This is America. I don't want to say it is bipartisan. This is America. This is about whether we can make a difference. Can we change something? Can

we have the influence of people who are basically the most unselfish, strongest, bravest people I have ever met, including the families of the Newtown children, to be able to come and say: Listen, I want to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens. I want people to have their rights. I want people to enjoy their guns. I want people to enjoy their hunting trips with their families. I want people to enjoy all the things the second amendment gives us. But I want to protect another family, protect another child, protect another person in America.

That is all we are trying to do.

As we look through the bill, there are so many different things we have talked about. I have heard people say: Oh, my goodness, they are going to start registering, and they are going to give all of those records to some big fancy computer that is going to know exactly where to come and get the gun of the Presiding Officer.

Not only does the law prohibit that today, this bill--when we pass this bill, this law will basically say: If any government agency intends to do that and abuse that record the law-abiding firearm dealer is supposed to keep--and only them--it will not only be a felony, it will entail 15 years of imprisonment. That is why we have these organizations basically joining in after looking at and reading the bill and saying: My goodness, this is really protecting second amendment rights.

So it is an emotional bill. It is an emotional time in our country, but truly it is a time for us to come together. It truly is. There is healing that must go on, and this bill will help that healing.

We want to talk about this, and we are going to go into it detail by detail, step by step.

I thank my good friend Senator Pat Toomey from Pennsylvania, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, if my friend will yield, if I may, I would like to mention that we also discussed including an incentive so someone can't say that is an unfunded mandate. That provision is not an unfunded mandate, I say to my colleague.

I thank the good Senator from Pennsylvania. I appreciate that. I think what he said is spot-on. He is basically saying it preserves important exemptions of background checks that are in current law, such as the temporary transfers. That way, for example, a person can lend their hunting rifle. We are hearing all of those misnomers, such as that people can't even lend their hunting rifle to a friend or a family member. People can do that. We are not preventing that. There are no restrictions in those circumstances. Also under current law are transfers between families, friends, and neighbors, which we have already talked about. That can be done. That is not what we are talking about. Again, it is just common sense.

As I said, the Senator from Pennsylvania, as well as our other colleagues, Senator Kirk and Senator Schumer, and I have been talking back and forth about this. This is not a bill written by just Senators. We have had input from the outside. We have included people from all different walks of life. We would then proceed to do a little research to find out if what they suggested made sense and if it had been done and if it hadn't, whether an infringement occurred to a person who has not been able to enjoy their rights as a law-abiding citizen. We did all of that.

I appreciate so much the Senator from Pennsylvania pointing out those issues, and we will talk more about it later.

I yield for the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. President, I think we all have letters such as Senator Toomey read right now and people looking for what we call gun sense, which goes right along with common sense. There is so much out there about the bill. Let me just reiterate a couple of things the bill does not do.

What the bill will not do: The bill will not in any way, shape, or form infringe upon anyone's second amendment right to keep and bear arms. In fact, it strengthens that, as Senator Toomey has so eloquently described.

The bill will not take away anyone's guns. Nobody will have their guns taken away. The bill will not ban any type of a firearm. It is not even in the bill. We are not banning anything. The bill will not ban or restrict the use of any kind of bullet or any size of clip. It is not in this legislation.

The bill will not create a national registry, which we just spoke about. In fact, it explicitly prohibits that, which would give the penalties of a felony and a 15-year sentence. As we talk about this bill, we are asking our colleagues to come down and bring their questions, concerns, or what they believe and what they have seen in talking to their constituents.

Right now I am very pleased to have with me a colleague of mine from the Big Sky State of Montana. He comes from gun culture like myself and Senator Toomey. I yield to the Senator from Montana.

I would say that more than 90 percent of the background checks in America that are done are less than 3 minutes, and probably even no more than a minute and a half. So in that range. That tells you about how quick it can be done.

All of the Members who worked on the bill, Senators Toomey, Kirk, and Schumer, all of us got together on that. There had to be--basically, one of our largest gun organizations brought us to task saying: We supported background checks 10 or more years ago. It just did not work.

You know what. They were right. So we said: Fine. Do you throw the baby out with the bathwater or do you change the water and make it a little bit better?

So we went back and looked at it. We said: Fine. We did not want any unfunded mandates. We put $100 million a year for 4 years for the States to have grants to get them up and running to where they should be. So there is an incentive. We also said: If you do not do your job and you do not turn your records over of your adjudicated criminals or mental illness records, then 10 percent the first year, 11 percent-- then I think it goes to 13 and up to 15. That is off of the Byrne/JAG money. Every State depends on that Byrne/JAG money. That is serious. No one else has ever put that in there.

You know what. That concern came from the gun organizations right now, one of them who is not supporting it and should be.

I wish to thank my good friend, the Senator from Montana. I know how many calls he has received and the pressure. I know this because of all of the misconceptions and untruths. He did something we are asking all of our colleagues to do. He read the bill and found out for himself this bill does exactly what we have been trying to do for a long time: most importantly, protect the innocent and our people by keeping guns away from people and children who shouldn't have them. He read the bill. This is all we have asked for.

I yield for my friend from Pennsylvania, Senator Toomey.

I wish to thank Senator Toomey for his hard work, to be involved, informed, and to bring his expertise to the discussion we have had with our colleagues.

As he has been speaking we have been joined by our good friend Senator Tester from Montana. Those of us who come from a gun culture State can put some of these myths to the side, if you will, and allow the facts to come out.

I think the most important thing about speaking today for a while is that we are not creating new law, we are improving old law. This is what we were sent here to do.

My father used to say the only thing that is new in this world is a pair of eyes. Everything else has been pretty much an improvement of what someone else has done. This is what we are trying to do. We are improving on a system which needed to be improved.

We spoke about the veterans, as Senator Toomey has. I didn't know how veterans were treated when they came home. We are in a war which has lasted longer than 12 years and counting. There are hundreds of thousands of men and women who have put their lives on the line for us and come back with challenges. If they have been affected by this war, they are almost afraid to be evaluated because if they are not evaluated in a positive way, they could be discriminated against.

I think that is wrong unless in a process and procedure they are found to not be competent. We have 150,000 who perhaps were not notified of their rights. We need to make sure they have the appeal process available to them. When this legislation passes, every veteran coming back going through a court proceeding can say: Wait a minute. I went through a field process, and I think your evaluation is wrong.

We can't put them in a system they need to work the rest of their lives to undo. I think we owe that to our great veterans in this country. Again, it comes down to simply reading the bill, not making up things, and listening to organizations that may be using this fear tactic as a campaign to raise funds, finances, and money. I don't like to say that. I am a proud member of organizations. They do a lot of good and informing and teaching safety to young children. We do a lot of things.

I had the benefit of growing up in a town with a sportsmen's club called the Farmington Sportsmen's Club. My father was not a big sportsman, but he wanted me to be involved. He worked a lot and didn't have time. These people took me under their wing at a very young time and taught me to respect and to use firearms safely. They taught me to be totally responsible, such as when I should put a shell in the gun, when I should not put in a shell, when I should have it in my case. Also, they taught me when I should carry it in the woods and when I cross the fence the gun should be unloaded.

All of us have heard of horrific accidents. These are just little things. They ingrained this into me. A lot of these organizations do good deeds. When they put misinformation out, they do a disservice to law-abiding gun owners and the people who respect the right the second amendment provides. Senator Toomey has eloquently spoken about this, as well as Senator Tester.

This is going to continue for some time, I am understanding, and we are going to be talking, Senator Toomey and I. We will be joined by other colleagues--Senators Kirk, Schumer, and Tester--and we are inviting all of our colleagues to come down. If you have heard something from a constituent or from an organization, come down and talk to us about it. We will show you in the bill that it doesn't do what they have said.

The biggest thing we have heard is about the registration. It doesn't do that. Not only does it not do it, it even protects you more than you are protected today by law. We improve upon it. It doesn't take anybody's guns away. I think Senator Toomey talked about basically there are things he wouldn't vote for, nor would I. But

guess what. That is not in this bill. There will be other bills, other amendments, that all colleagues will have a chance to either support, if they are for more gun support, or oppose.

What we are saying is, this is one piece of legislation we know will make a difference by keeping guns out of the hands of those who have been adjudicated through a mental court system or a criminal court system. And we know about commercial transactions--people have used all different types of figures as to how many guns basically are transferred at a gun show or online. With the expansion of the Internet there are going to be more and more. All we are saying is that is the least personal of all transactions--on the Internet. I might not know you, Mr. President, but up in your beautiful State of Maine I may see something you have that I would like, and with the technology of this modern world today to make contact, hopefully, I would be able to purchase that. That is something I could never have done 20, 30, or 40 years ago. But I want to make sure also that gun is sent to a licensed dealer who depends on his livelihood by abiding by the law and making sure a background check is done on me before I can purchase or pick up that gun I bought from you. That only makes common sense.

I have heard a lot of things such as: Well, they can be charging a lot. Fees can be charged. We allow the person who is going to be doing that service for you to charge a fee. Let me tell you, as a businessperson, every one of us in business, especially retailers, knows exactly the value of every customer who walks through a door. You might say: Well, they are just shopping. My grandfather says: There is no such thing as a shopper. They are all buyers. They just don't know it yet. They are going to buy something. They walk through the store and they have a value. And if they have a value, you know what is going to happen? You are going to see people advertising: Please come and let us do your background check free for you. That is a service we want to give you. We want you to be right and make sure the right person gets it. And guess what. They might be buying something else. They might buy new boots or some camouflage gear for their son or buy their daughter a new outfit.

That is marketing. That is business. That is what it is all about. So don't let the naysayers say: Oh no, too much of a burden. Trust me, the markets have a unique ability to correct themselves and take advantage of a situation. As a retailer, when a customer--a buyer, not a shopper--comes through the door, we will sell them something. I know that.

So we are going to be happy to talk about this bill for a few days here. We want to invite all our colleagues down. We will be announcing the times we will be coming to the floor. In the meantime, to all of my colleagues, to all who have been hearing all of these things and getting excited about we are going to do something to take your guns away or take your rights away or register you, that is false. That is a baldfaced falsehood. All we are saying is go online and read the bill. It is only 49 pages. We have even broken it down for you. If colleagues will do that, and bring those conversations to the floor, that is all we can ask. The facts will set you free. The facts will set you free.

We have worked hard. Our staffs have worked exceedingly hard. And I appreciate everybody--my good friend Senator Toomey, my good friend Senator Tester, and the other Senators; Senator Kirk from Illinois and Senator Schumer from New York--who has worked so hard to find a balance. It takes us all, from the right and the left, from both sides of the aisle--Republicans, Democrats, and Independents--to work together to make this an American bill. It is not just bipartisan, it is for our country. It is to save children, it is to keep our society safe, and also to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens and law- abiding gun owners such as myself and the Presiding Officer.

With that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk and I ask for its consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that on Monday, April 15, 2013, at 5 p.m., the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 21; that there be 30 minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of time the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nomination; further, that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, after consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 22 and 23; that the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nominations in the order listed; further, that following the votes on Calendar No. 21 and Calendar No. 23, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order; that any related statements be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; and the Senate then resume legislative action.

I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 2 p.m. on Monday, April 15, 2013; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, 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 be in a period of morning business until 5 p.m. with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each; further, that at 5 p.m., the Senate proceed to executive session under the previous order.

At 5:30 p.m. on Monday there will be a rollcall vote on confirmation of the O'Connell nomination to be a U.S. district judge in California.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support an amendment to H.R. 933 requiring the military services to resume their tuition assistance programs, which are so vital to our military's professional and educational development.

On March 5, 2013, the Department of Defense Comptroller Robert Hale sent a letter to the services to provide ``additional guidance for handling budgetary uncertainty in fiscal year 2013.'' In his letter, Secretary Hale said that ``all services should consider significant reductions in funding new tuition assistance applications.''

Three days later, on March 8, the Army suspended tuition assistance for all its soldiers--Guard and Reserve--and as a result, more than one million Army soldiers immediately lost this important education benefit. There was not a single exception, not one, not even for troops wounded in combat.

The Air Force, Coast Guard, and Marines also suspended their tuition assistance programs.

This matter concerns me greatly, and I hope it does my colleagues as well. I understand the difficult fiscal decisions facing our military as a result of the sequester, but I object to the way they are handling tuition assistance with what amounts to blunt force policy making.

I want to reexamine the exact wording of Secretary Hale's letter. He stated that the military services ``should consider significant reductions in the tuition program.'' I want to repeat, he said to ``consider significant reductions.'' Although his guidance was non- specific in terms of what amounts to ``significant,'' four of our five military services followed with the most extreme reduction possible-- they suspended all tuition assistance, indefinitely.

This decision affects lives, real lives of one of our nation's greatest treasures--the less than 1 percent of our fellow citizens who are willing to volunteer and serve in our Armed Forces, regardless of the dangers they are likely to face in the defense of freedom.

I want to highlight one example of the thousands of lives now affected--a young soldier who recently enlisted in the National Guard. His personal story reflects the negative impact the tuition assistance cuts are going to have on our Armed Forces.

I saw him interviewed by a news station. He is 19, but with his new buzz cut, he looked much younger. His military mannerisms were unmistakable he gave short responses, always beginning with a ``Sir'' or ``Ma'am.''

When asked how the decision to suspend tuition assistance affected him, he said, politely, ``I was really counting'' on tuition assistance for college.

You see, this young man does not have any comparable education benefits to fall back on. He is only 19, as I said, and just back from training. As a Guardsman, he would need to deploy at

least once to receive some of the new GI Bill benefits.

What do you think he will tell his friends about the military as a result of this experience? What will his family say? And how much warning did we give this young man that he could no longer count on $4,500 per year in tuition assistance?

As I said, this young man was 19 years old. Last month the veterans' unemployment rate for those ages 18 to 24 rose again. It is now a very troubling 36.2 percent. We are in the midst of a grave unemployment crisis and now is the time to invest--not divest--in continuing education for our military.

This is not the way we should treat our service men and women. We should keep our commitments, especially those we have made to those who are willing to sacrifice everything for their fellow Americans and the Nation.

I urge my friends and colleagues to support our amendment to require the services to resume tuition assistance the minute this bill passes. It is sponsored by Senators Inhofe and Hagan, and it is a necessary response to an unnecessarily harsh and short-sighted policy decision.

The sequester is not a thoughtful or balanced approach to cutting spending, and we should find an alternative. But, until that moment occurs, everyone, especially the military services, must reject the impulse to ``grab low hanging fruit,'' and cut it down, in its entirety, simply because it is more convenient.

Mr. President, I rise with great pride that my home State of West Virginia received special recognition today for its support of music education in our public school system. The recognition came from three organizations that are committed to music education-- the VH1 Save The Music Foundation, the National Association of Music Merchants--NAMM, and the National Association for Music Education-- NAfME.

I want to extend my personal thanks to the leaders of all three organizations for recognizing West Virginia, for their support of our efforts to rebuild music programs in our State and for making a special day even more special--with an award ceremony today that included performances by singer-songwriter Vanessa Carlton, jazz guitarist and former New York Yankees champion Bernie Williams and Red Hot Chili Peppers drummer Chad Smith.

I enjoyed their performances, but I also was moved by their stories of personal and professional benefits from their music education. Their stories made clear how the opportunity to learn about the arts and to perform as an artist helps students' ideas and realities beyond words and numbers in textbooks.

But even more special was the fact that the Save The Music award ceremony included a performance from a student jazz ensemble from Shepherdstown Middle School, which received a VH1 Save The Music grant in 2012. I was so proud to listen to these young musicians. They are a wonderful example of the extraordinary way music can impact the lives of students, not just in West Virginia but all over the country.

I would like to congratulate these students on their performance today and on their many accomplishments leading up to this special day--and I wish them many more successes in the future. Also, I would like to especially thank Shepherdstown Middle School Principal Elizabeth Best and Shepherdstown music teacher Mrs. Chad Conant for their generous contributions and assistance.

On behalf of the State of West Virginia, I was honored to accept, along with fellow West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller and Randall Reid-Smith, Commissioner of the West Virginia Division of Culture and History, a Support Music Award from NAMM, which works in partnership with the VH1 Save The Music Foundation and NAfME.

I deeply appreciate the acknowledgement of our efforts to support music education. And, of course, I deeply appreciate the contributions to music education that these organizations make in West Virginia and throughout the United States.

The VH1 Save the Music Foundation is a nonprofit organization dedicated to restoring instrumental music education programs in America's public schools, and raising awareness about the importance of music as part of each child's complete education. To date, VH1 Save the Music has provided more than $49.5 million in new musical instruments to 1,850 public schools in more than 192 school districts around the country, impacting the lives of over 2.1 million children. Research sponsored by NAMM shows clearly that students participating in music education do better in school and go on to college.

Since 2009, the VH1 Save the Music Foundation has given instrumental music education grants valued at $1.05 million to 35 schools in 30 counties throughout West Virginia. And I am informed that the Foundation is committed to funding music education in all 55 counties of the Mountain State. This initiative started when I was Governor, and I am pleased to see it moving forward so positively.

This collaboration is a true example of the huge benefits of public- private partnerships. It is also a strong incentive for all of us to work for more Federal and State funding to enhance music education in our public schools.

In today's global economy, creativity is essential. Consequently, education in the arts is more important than ever because education in the arts helps students be inventive, resourceful and imaginative. Music education is not just a privilege--it is essential.

Mr. President, I rise today to bring attention to an effort spearheaded by a native West Virginian, Mr. William J. Friedman. I ask to have printed in the Record a copy of the West Virginia-House Concurrent Resolution No. 74, which was passed by the West Virginia State Legislature on March 12, 2012, detailing his efforts.

Mr. Friedman is a proud West Virginian. He is the longest tenured member of the National Democratic Club, and founder of both the 116 Club and the prestigious Georgetown Club.

According to his colleagues, Mr. Friedman is also a veteran who served this country in the Korean War and lived in Africa for almost 15 years. Mr. Friedman was present during a number of movements within the region; including the civil war in Mozambique and the dismantling of South African apartheid.

I am informed that Mr. Friedman served his country abroad by investing millions in the country of Mozambique with hopes of spreading American style capitalism and creating hundreds of jobs.

Further, I am told that Mr. Friedman was inspired by Mozambique President Joaquim Chissano, which led to his relocation to Mozambique. At the time, Mozambique was in midst of a bloody civil war. Even so, Mr. Friedman assisted the newly appointed Presi-

dent to develop relationships with western nations.

Mr. Friedman has said that he invested millions of dollars to promote free enterprise in Mozambique. Accordingly, I am told that Mr. Friedman established the first direct foreign investment with Overseas Private Investment Corporation insurance in the country of Mozambique.

Mr. Friedman continued investing in the country until Mozambique held its first multi-party elections and, as a result, Joaquim Chissano was elected President of the Republic of Mozambique.

As a U.S. Senator, it is such an honor to serve the great people of West Virginia and to bring attention to their special efforts. I always say that the people of West Virginia are some of the most patriotic in the country.

The resolution follows:

State of West Virginia, Legislative Resolution

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